DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to claim 4 is withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated by amendment.
All other rejections from the previous Office action stand.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. The phrase “result in a net stripping of copper” 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. Applicant refers to page 4 lines 8-11 as providing support:
PNG
media_image1.png
114
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrasing referred to and the remainder of the original specification do not appear to provide sufficient support for a ‘net’ stripping of copper.
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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the pulse plating reverse" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since Applicant has acknowledged that the “pulse plating reverse” is not the “pulse plating reverse current” of claim 1, the phrase is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is not referring to the previous recitation of “pulse plating reverse current”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desalvo et al. (US 2021/0130970).
Regarding claim 1, Desalvo discloses an electrolytic method (title) (= a method comprising):
Providing a circuit board substrate with drilled through-holes (Figure 1) [0095]-[0096] (= providing a substrate comprising a first side and a second side with a plurality of through-holes);
Immersing the substrate in an aqueous acid copper plating bath [0085] (= immersing the substrate in a copper plating bath);
Polarizing opposing sides of the substrate [0068], [0070] with an electroplating power supply rectifier [0115], [0125] (= simultaneously polarizing the first side of the substrate with a rectifier and polarizing the second side of the substrate with the rectifier to generate an electrical current on the first and second side of the substrate);
Applying a plating cycle including direct current plating followed by pulse plating wherein the pulse plating on opposing sides includes a phase shift of 180̊ (Table 3, [0098], [0126]) (= plating a partial copper bridge in the plurality of through-holes by simultaneously applying a plating cycle to the first side and the second side of the substrate comprising applying DC current on the first side and the second side of the substrate followed by applying a first pulse-train on the first side of the substrate and a second pulse-train on the second side of the substrate, the first pulse-train and the second pulse-train are offset by 180̊;) and then
Filling the through-holes with copper by applying a reverse pulse plating (Table 2, [0102]) (= filling the through-holes with copper by applying a pulse plating reverse current to the substrate).
Regarding the claimed plating steps (e.g. plating and filling), Desalvo discloses the claimed steps as described above, however the steps are met by combining embodiments of Desalvo. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to combine direct current plating, pulse plating and reverse pulse plating of Desalvo to produce the same or similar predictable result of filling the through holes with copper without voids or defects [0022]. Regarding the claimed “offset by 180̊ of the plating cycle”, a plating cycle of DC current and pulse current is disclosed by the combination of teachings of Desalvo. Desalvo additionally discloses that the pulse cycles may be configured for asynchronous pulse cycles with a phase shift of 0 to 180 degrees [0126]. Although Desalvo does not explicitly disclose the phase shift is for the combination of DC current and the pulse current, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed range based on the teaching of Desalvo that includes asynchronous pulse cycles with a shift of 0 to 180 degrees. Desalvo unambiguously discloses a phase shift and it would have been obvious to apply the phase shift to the entire plating cycle of DC current and pulse current.
Regarding claim 2, Desalvo discloses a direct current including 2.5 ASD (Table 3) which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 3-4, Desalvo discloses a forward pulse current range of 0.5 to 5.0 ASD (Table 3) and wherein the reverse current is up to x4 the forward pulse current (e.g. 2 to 20 ASD) which falls within the claimed range (Table 3). The plating a partial copper bridge and filling the through-holes occur with the direct current plating and pulse plating of Desalvo.
Regarding claim 5, Desalvo discloses a substrate thickness including 0.005 and about 3 mm [0097] (= 5 to 30,000 microns) which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Desalvo discloses wherein the plurality of through-holes has a diameter of about 0.005 to about 1 mm [0097] (= 5 to 10,000 microns) which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Desalvo does not indicate the partial bridge ratio, however, Desalvo depicts the copper electroplating partial bridge (Figure 1) which appears to show a ratio that is greater than 0 and less than 1.
Regarding claim 8, Desalvo discloses an aspect ratio of 0.5:1 and about 6:1 [0097] which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Desalvo discloses the same method and materials as indicated for claim 1. Claim 10 does not include any additional method steps or materials that vary from claim 1 therefore the disclosure of Desalvo reads on a net stripping since Desalvo is performing the same method and materials as claimed. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desalvo et al. (US 2021/0130970) in view of Kawai (US 2015/0156888).
Regarding claim 9, Desalvo fails to disclose DC current is applied on the first side of the substrate while applying the second pulse-train on the second side of the substrate, and DC current is applied on the second side of the substrate while applying the first pulse-train on the first side of the substrate.
Kawai discloses a method of manufacturing a wiring board comprising a substrate (20) with a first surface (F) and a second surface (S) with a through hole (31) therebetween (Figure 1B [0058]). Kawai discloses filling the through holes using a first electrolytic plating preferably by DC plating prior to applying pulse plating [0058]. As shown in Figures 15a,b Kawai discloses applying a DC current prior to a first side receiving a pulsed current while the second surface receives DC current and thereafter the first side receives DC current while the second surface receives pulse current [0099].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising applying the second pulse-train on the second side of the substrate, and DC current is applied on the second side of the substrate while applying the first pulse-train on the first side of the substrate because Kawai discloses initially applying DC current, then applying pulse current to one side while continuing to apply DC current to the other side and then switching to pulse current on the other side. Kawai discloses that DC current is preferably applied initially before pulse current. Desalvo and Kawai overlap in the same field of endeavor as the instant claims for filling through-holes by controlling the applied current (Figure 1, Kawai).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, the remarks are directed towards the previous objection to claim 4. It is noted that the phrasing is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b for lack of sufficient antecedent basis. The Examiner acknowledges the phrasing in the specification as “pulse plating reverse” (page 3) however as currently presented in claim 4, the phrasing lacks proper antecedent basis.
On page 5 the argument states that Desalvo does not disclose a partial copper bridge…by simultaneously applying a plating cycle to the first side and the second side…comprising applying DC current following by applying a first pulse-train and a second pulse-train as claimed and states that Desalvo initially uses pulse wave form and then transitioned to DC and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Desalvo unambiguously discloses applying DC followed by pulse plating. See for example Figure 1 with a DC flash and then pulse plating.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Table 3 indicates initial DC followed by pulse plating.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On pages 5-6 the argument states that Desalvo does not disclose the claimed offset by 180̊ since Deslavo does not disclose a phase shift based on the entire plating cycle, but only the pulse wave form plating portion and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. As stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed range given the teachings of Desalvo which include combining direct current, pulse current and applying an asynchronous pulse profile with a phase shift between 0 and 180 degrees.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm 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, 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795