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 13 April 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are currently under examination.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 13 April 2026.
New rejections are provided herein.
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.
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 9 and 20 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electrolyte in the electroplating bath" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of saturation is deemed to be substantial.
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, 4-7, 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatthaar et al (DE 10-2014-221-584 A1) in view of Sakamoto et al (US 2020/0010971 A1).
As to claim 1, Glatthaar discloses method for filling at least one hole formed in a printed circuit board (pg. 3 “as an electrical connection between electrical conductors in different layers of a printed circuit board (filling the vias)”, comprising:
providing a paste comprising an electrically conductive metal powder (“Composition A” “a composition (A) comprising between 10 and 99.8% by weight of metallic particles” pg. 3, “Composition (A) is normally applied to the substrate surface (O) in the form of a paste “ pg. 5) and an electrolyte into the at least one hole of the printed circuit board (“electrolyte solution” pg. 5); and
galvanic metallisation of the printed circuit board so that elemental metal is deposited from the electrolyte in the at least one hole during the galvanic metallisation (Step iii “acting on the substrate surface (O) metal particles (P) with an electrical voltage (U) against a in the electrolyte solution (E) located counter electrode (G).” pg. 3.).
Glatthaar fails to disclose wherein the paste comprising an electrically conductive metal powder and an electrolyte.
Sakamoto discloses using a paste for electrolytic plating comprising a mixture of particles and an electrolyte ([0022]) where the mixture of the particles with the plating liquid allows the formation of a high-concentration of the particles in the plating ([0030]).
Glatthaar discloses a base method which provides the conductive metal powder and electrolyte in separate steps. Sakamoto provides a known technique in forming electrolytic plating pastes via mixing particles and the plating liquid before application to the cathode for electroplating, in which the mixing into a paste allows for the formation of a higher concentration of particles in the film.
Sakamoto and Glatthaar are of analogous art a part of the same field of endeavor of electrolytic plating composite layers with particles provided therein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that pre-mixing the particles and plating solution would yield an expected result of forming a plating composition that enable the plating of metal from the plating solution with particles formed in the resultant deposit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have explicitly used a paste comprising particles and electrolyte as taught by Sakamoto for the conductive particles and electrolyte in Glatthaar because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying a paste with both the conductive particles and electrolyte would have yielded the predictable result of supplying both the particles and electrolyte in a singular step. See MPEP 2143 C and D.
As to claim 4, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the metal powder comprises copper particles, silver particles and/or silver-plated copper particles. (pg. 4 “Preferably, the metallic particles (P) contain silver, copper, tin, gold, lead, zinc, nickel or a mixture thereof. Particularly preferred metals are silver and / or copper and / or tin”).
As to claim 5, Glatthaar further discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the metal powder is greater than or equal to 10 µm (pg. 4 “The metallic particles (P) preferably have a size of 5 nm to 100 μm, more preferably a size of 10 nm to 30 μm, even more preferably 20 nm to 3.0 μm. The size of the particles (P) is preferably at least 5 nm, more preferably at least 10 nm, most preferably at least 20 nm. In one embodiment, the metallic particles (P) have a size of 20 nm to 200 nm. This embodiment is particularly suitable for inkjet processes. In a further embodiment, the metallic particles (P) have a size of 1 μm to 5 μm. This embodiment is particularly suitable for screen printing”).
As to claims 6,19, and 20, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the paste comprises 90 wt% or more of the metal powder (pg. 4 “Preferably, composition (A) contains not more than 99.5% by weight, more preferably not more than 90.0% by weight of metallic particles (P)”) which would leave the amount of electrolyte to overlap the instantly claimed ranges as required by instant claim 19 which is deemed to be substantially saturated in dissolved cations as required for instant claim 20. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent (pg. 4” Composition (A) may further contain, and preferably contains one or more solvents preferably in an amount of not more than 10% by weight”) and cations dissolved in the solvent, the cations corresponding to a metal of the metal powder. (pg. 7 “In a second embodiment of the invention, the proportion of metal ions which can be deposited from the electrolytic solution (E) in the process according to the present invention can be up to 30% by weight, based on the electrolyte solution, for example silver, copper, tin, gold -, lead, zinc or nickel ions”).
As to claim 9, the limitations “wherein an electrolyte of an electroplating bath of the galvanic metallization is chemically the same as the electrolyte present in the paste, and the electrolyte present in the paste has a cation concentration greater than a cation concentration of the electrolyte in the electroplating bath of the galvanic metallization”, would necessarily be met because of the continual plating from the electroplating bath decreasing the cation concentration as the metal is plated.
As to claim 10, Glatthaar further discloses herein the paste comprises 10 wt% or less of the electrolyte (pg. 4” Composition (A) may further contain, and preferably contains one or more solvents preferably in an amount of not more than 10% by weight”).
As to claim 11, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the paste further comprises an additive (pg. 4 “Solvents are commonly employed to reduce the viscosity of composition (A), for example, those used for the application process, such as e.g. Printing process to achieve necessary viscosity. Suitable organic coatings, dispersants, binders and solvents are known in the art”).
As to claim 12, Glatthaar further discloses that no resins are used in the paste via their exclusion from the description.
As to claim 15, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the paste comprises 90 wt% or more of the metal powder (pg. 4 “Preferably, composition (A) contains not more than 99.5% by weight, more preferably not more than 90.0% by weight of metallic particles (P)”).
As to claim 16, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent (pg. 4” Composition (A) may further contain, and preferably contains one or more solvents preferably in an amount of not more than 10% by weight”) and cations dissolved in the solvent, the cations corresponding to a metal of the metal powder. (pg. 7 “In a second embodiment of the invention, the proportion of metal ions which can be deposited from the electrolytic solution (E) in the process according to the present invention can be up to 30% by weight, based on the electrolyte solution, for example silver, copper, tin, gold -, lead, zinc or nickel ions”).
As to claim 18, Glatthaar further discloses wherein the paste further comprises an additive (pg. 4 “Solvents are commonly employed to reduce the viscosity of composition (A), for example, those used for the application process, such as e.g. Printing process to achieve necessary viscosity. Suitable organic coatings, dispersants, binders and solvents are known in the art”).
Claims 2, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kolics et al (US 2012/0013008 A1) and Ponnuswamy et al (US 7,964,506 B1).
As to claim 2, Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, fails to explicitly disclose wherein prior to the introduction of the paste, an inner peripheral wall of the at least one hole is/are galvanically pre-metallised to form a sleeve-like metal layer and the paste is introduced into a space delimited by the sleeve-like metal layer.
Kolics discloses electroplating a hole in a printed circuit board (Abstract) via incorporation of an electrolyte with a copper metal powder to conduct electroplating ([0024] [0031]) which includes prior to the introduction of the paste, an inner peripheral wall of the at least one hole is pre-metallised to form a sleeve-like metal layer and the paste is introduced into a space delimited by the sleeve-like metal layer (layer #120 seed/barrier layer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have pre-metallized the hole to form a seed layer as taught by Kolics in the method of Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, in order to provide adequate conductivity to the substrate to effect electrochemical plating (Kolics [0020])
Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto and Kolics, fails to explicitly disclose the pre-metallization is performed galvanically.
Ponnuswamy disclosed galvanically depositing conformal copper seed layers (Fig. 3 step 307 col. 5 line 51-55) into features of a substrate (col. 2 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a galvanic deposition process of forming seed layer as taught by Ponnuswamy in the method of Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto and Kolics, because it allows for a conformal and continuous seed layer free of oxides (Ponnuswamy col. 5 line 51-53).
As to claims 8 and 17, Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises CuCN, CuSO4,Cu[BF4]2, Cu(S03 NH2) 2, Cu[P207], AgCN, K[Ag(CN)2] or a mixture of at least two components thereof dissolved in the solvent, for example in aqueous solution, and/or wherein the cations originate from a salt dissolved in the solvent, for example in aqueous solution.
Kolics discloses cations originate from a salt dissolved in the solvent ([0020]).
Ponnuswamy discloses using copper salts to provide cations in the plating bath (col. 8 lines 11-24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used salts of the cations as taught in Kolics and Ponnuswamy in the method of Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, because it is a recognized chemical structure to provide an expected result of providing metal cations into plating baths. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Fushie et al (US 2006/0201818 A1).
As to claim 3, Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the printed circuit board exposed to galvanic metallisation is provided with a protective layer on the printed circuit board bottom side and/or the printed circuit board top side which protects against deposition of metal during galvanic metallisation on a copper layer applied to the printed circuit board bottom side and/or the printed circuit board top side.
Fushie discloses electroplating printed circuit boards (Abstract) and wherein the printed circuit board exposed to galvanic metallisation is provided with a protective layer on the printed circuit board bottom side and/or the printed circuit board top side which protects against deposition of metal during galvanic metallisation on a copper layer applied to the printed circuit board bottom side and/or the printed circuit board top side (#10 Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a protective layer on the bottom or top side of the printed circuit board as taught by Fushie in the method of Glatthaar, as modified by Sakamoto, in order to prevent plating on the surfaces of the substrate following the electrolytic plating step (Fushie [0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights