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 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 14-16 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.
(Re Claims 14-16) Reciting “an average value of aspect ratios of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less” introduces new matter. The original disclosure only describes the aspect ratio with respect to a single protrusion, rather than any plurality of protrusions. Furthermore, the sole mention of an average appears to explicitly define an average value of the aspect ratio as N = 20: “Further, an average value of N = 20 was defined as a value of an aspect ratio” (specification, p. 11).
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, 3, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 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.
(Re Claim 1, 9, and 10) As two edges were respectively defined for both the Cu or Cu alloy substrate and the Ag layer, it is unclear which edges are referred to by either instance of “said one edge to said another edge”.
During examination, “the plurality of Ag protrusions are formed on the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate throughout from said one edge to said another edge and the lowermost surface of the Ag layer throughout from said one edge to said another edge” was read as “the plurality of Ag protrusions are formed on the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate throughout from said one edge to said another edge of the Cu or Cu alloy substate and the lowermost surface of the Ag layer throughout from said one edge to said another edge of the Ag layer”.
Claims 3, 12, and 14-16 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
Also, the first instance of both “the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substate” and “the lowermost surface of the Ag layer” lack antecedence.
During examination, the first instance of “the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substate” and “the lowermost surface of the Ag layer” was respectively read as “an uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substate” and “a lowermost surface of the Ag layer”.
Claims 3, 12, and 14-16 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
(Re Claims 14-16) As no average value was of the aspect ratio was described, it is unclear what “an average value of aspect ratios of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less” requires.
During examination, the quote limitation above was read “an aspect ratios of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsugawa et al. (WO 2018123708 A1, with line number reference to the provided translation) newly cited.
(Re Claim 1) Nakatsugawa teaches a metal component that is configured to be used for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the metal component comprising: a Cu (copper; ln. 83-84) or Cu alloy substrate (1; Fig. 3) having a conductivity (copper’s conductivity); and an Ag layer (2; Fig. 3, ln. 154-155) formed directly on all or part of a surface (topmost surface of the Cu substrate 1; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate, wherein the Ag layer has a surface with irregularities (4; Fig. 3) having a plurality of Ag protrusions (Fig. 3 markup), the uppermost surface (top surface; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate is flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fig. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3) and in direct contact with the lowermost surface (bottom surface; Fig. 3) of the Ag layer (Fig. 3), the lowermost surface of the Ag layer being flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fig. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3), and the plurality of Ag protrusions are formed on the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3) and the lowermost surface of the Ag layer throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3).
Nakatsugawa has not been shown to explicitly teach an aspect ratio of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less, the aspect ratio being a ratio of a height of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions.
Nakatsugawa does teach both that the value of Wmin (Fig. 3) is in the range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (ln. 256-265), and that the upper limit of the thickness is preferably between 0.2 µm and 1.5 µm (ln. 140-148).
Given the numeric values of the thickness and Wmin above; the total thickness represents the maximum possible height of any protrusion; the value for Wmax is between 1 and 5 times Wmin (at the bottom of Fig. 3); the aspect ratio is the ratio of a height of one of plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions; and the smallest width of any protrusion is zero when measured at the topmost part (Fig. 3), a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions with an aspect ratio of 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less. A ceiling for the width ranges that may be selected for any one Ag-protrusions is the largest preferred value of Wmin, which is 1.5 µm. As the smallest width chosen may be zero as described above, and the largest height of any Ag-protrusion is preferred to be 1.5 µm, Nakatsugawa discloses a preferred aspect ratio range that is from some value no greater than one to an infinite amount (due to dividing the finite height by a number approaching zero); this range overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). And a PHOSITA would select these values as one sought to optimize the thickness to balance surface roughness with preventing the Ag-protrusions from falling off (ln. 140-148), and to optimize the width to find an appropriate range producing acceptable adhesion (ln. 256-265), thereby arriving at the claimed aspect ratio. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 3) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component according to claim 1, wherein the aspect ratio of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.5 or more and 1.2 or less (see claim 1 rejection).
(Re Claim 9) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component that is configured to be used for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the metal component comprising: a Cu (copper; ln. 83-84) or Cu alloy substrate (1; Fig. 3) having a conductivity (copper’s conductivity); and an Ag layer (2; Fig. 3, ln. 154-155) formed directly on all or part of a surface (topmost surface of the Cu substrate 1; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate, wherein the Ag layer has a surface with granular irregularities (4; Fig. 3) having a plurality of Ag protrusions (Fig. 3 markup), the uppermost surface (top surface; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate is flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fig. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3) and in direct contact with the lowermost surface (bottom surface; Fig. 3) of the Ag layer (Fig. 3), the lowermost surface of the Ag layer being flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fig. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3), and the plurality of Ag protrusions are formed on the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3) and the lowermost surface of the Ag layer throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3).
Nakatsugawa has not been shown to explicitly teach an aspect ratio of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less, the aspect ratio being a ratio of a height of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions.
Nakatsugawa does teach both that the value of Wmin (Fig. 3) is in the range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (ln. 256-265), and that the upper limit of the thickness is preferably between 0.2 µm and 1.5 µm (ln. 140-148).
Given the numeric values of the thickness and Wmin above; the total thickness represents the maximum possible height of any protrusion; the value for Wmax is between 1 and 5 times Wmin (at the bottom of Fig. 3); the aspect ratio is the ratio of a height of one of plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions; and the smallest width of any protrusion is zero when measured at the topmost part (Fig. 3), a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions with an aspect ratio of 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less. A ceiling for the width ranges that may be selected for any one Ag-protrusions is the largest preferred value of Wmin, which is 1.5 µm. As the smallest width chosen may be zero as described above, and the largest height of any Ag-protrusion is preferred to be 1.5 µm, Nakatsugawa discloses a preferred aspect ratio range that is from some value no greater than one to an infinite amount (due to dividing the finite height by a number approaching zero). This range overlaps the claimed range, and a PHOSITA would select these values as one sought to adjust the thickness to balance surface roughness with preventing the Ag-protrusions from falling off (ln. 140-148), and to adjust the width to find an appropriate range producing acceptable adhesion (ln. 256-265). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 10) Nakatsugawa teaches a metal component that is configured to be used for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the metal component comprising: a Cu (copper; ln. 83-84) or Cu alloy substrate (1; Fig. 3) having a conductivity (copper’s conductivity); and an Ag layer (2; Fig. 3, ln. 154-155) formed directly on all or part of a surface (topmost surface of the Cu substrate 1; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate, wherein the Ag layer has a surface with irregularities (4; Fig. 3) having a plurality of Ag protrusions (Fig. 3 markup), the uppermost surface (top surface; Fig. 3) of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate is flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fgi. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3) and in direct contact with the lowermost surface (bottom surface; Fig. 3) of the Ag layer, the lowermost surface of the Ag layer being flat throughout from one edge (left edge; Fig. 3) to another edge (right edge; Fig. 3), the plurality of Ag protrusions are formed on the uppermost surface of the Cu or Cu alloy substrate throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3) and the lowermost surface of the Ag layer throughout from said one edge to said another edge (Fig. 3).
Nakatsugawa has not been shown to explicitly teach an aspect ratio of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions is 0.3 or more, the aspect ratio being a ratio of a height of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions, and a shear strength of the Ag layer in a shear strength test according to a procedure specified by SEMI standard G69-0996 performed at 260°C is 2 MPa or more.
Nakatsugawa does teach both that the value of Wmin (Fig. 3) is in the range of 0.2 µm to 3 µm (ln. 256-265), and that the upper limit of the thickness is preferably between 0.2 µm and 1.5 µm (ln. 140-148).
Given the numeric values of the thickness and Wmin above; the total thickness represents the maximum possible height of any protrusion; the value for Wmax is between 1 and 5 times Wmin (at the bottom of Fig. 3); the aspect ratio is the ratio of a height of one of plurality of Ag-protrusions to a width of one of the plurality of Ag protrusions; and the smallest width of any protrusion is zero when measured at the topmost part (Fig. 3), a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions with an aspect ratio of 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less. A ceiling for the width ranges that may be selected for any one Ag-protrusions is the largest preferred value of Wmin, which is 1.5 µm. As the smallest width chosen may be zero as described above, and the largest height of any Ag-protrusion is preferred to be 1.5 µm, Nakatsugawa discloses a preferred aspect ratio range that is from some value no greater than one to an infinite amount (due to dividing the finite height by a number approaching zero). This range overlaps the claimed range, and a PHOSITA would select these values as one sought to adjust the thickness to balance surface roughness with preventing the Ag-protrusions from falling off (ln. 140-148), and to adjust the width to find an appropriate range producing acceptable adhesion (ln. 256-265). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
As the prior art has been shown to be identical to the claimed structure of the invention, a PHOSITA would find it obvious for modified Nakatsugawa as described above to possess the claimed shear strength. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112, particularly 2112.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 12) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component according to claim 10, wherein the aspect ratio of one of the plurality of Ag-protrusions is 0.5 or more and 1.2 or less (see the rejection of claim 10).
(Re Claim 14) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component according to claim 1, wherein an average value (see the 112 rejections) of aspect ratios of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less, each one of the aspect ratios being a ratio of a height of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions to a width of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions (see the 112 rejections).
(Re Claim 15) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component according to claim 9, wherein an average value of aspect ratios of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less (see the 112 rejections), each one of the aspect ratios being a ratio of a height of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions to a width of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions (see the 112 rejections).
(Re Claim 16) Nakatsugawa teaches the metal component according to claim 10, wherein an average value of aspect ratios of the plurality of Ag protrusions is 0.3 or more and 1.2 or less (see the 112 rejections), each one of the aspect ratios being a ratio of a height of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions to a width of each one of the plurality of Ag protrusions (see the 112 rejections).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to p. 11, third paragraph to support an average aspect ratio as now found in claims 14-16 (remarks, p. 9). However, this section of the specification describes analyzing the aspect ratio of a single protrusion: “the aspect ratio of the protrusion formed on the surface…” Furthermore, the sole mention of an average value of the aspect ratio defined the aspect ratio as “N = 20”: “an average value of N = 20 was defined as a value of the aspect ratio” (p. 11, third paragraph). Nowhere is an average value of aspect ratios of a plurality of protrusions described.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new rejection.
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 Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights