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 Objections
Claims 4-6, 8-12, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 5 and 6, line 1, it is suggested to deleted the comma after the term “wherein”.
Claim 6, line 1, it is suggested to amend the term “electroless” to “the electroless”.
Claim 8, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “secondary amine” to “the secondary amine”.
Claim 9, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “reducing agent” to “the reducing agent”.
Claim 10, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “pH modifying” to “the pH modifying”.
Claim 11, line 3, and claim 12, line 4, it is suggested to amend the term “the complexing agent” to “the secondary amine complexing agent” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 14, line 3, it is suggested to amend “the solution” to “the electroless copper plating solution” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 16, line 2, it is suggested to amend the term “copper source” to “the copper source”.
Claim 16, line 3, it is suggested to amend the term “complexing agent” to “the secondary amine complexing agent” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 16, line 4, it is suggested to amend the term “reducing agent” to “the reducing agent”.
Claim 16, line 4, the duplicate term “and” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16, line 5, it is suggested to amend the term “pH modifying” to “the pH modifying”.
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 7, 11-12, 14 and 16-18 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.
Claim 7, lines 3-4, the term “the aqueous copper sulfate (CuSO4) component”
is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Amending this term to read “an aqueous copper sulfate (CuSO4) component” can overcome this rejection.
Claim 11, line 2, the term “the copper source component” is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 11, lines 3-4, the term “the aqueous copper sulfate (CuSO4) component/water combination” is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 11, line 5, the term “the aqueous reducing agent component” is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Amending lines 2-5 of claim 11 to read “plating solution is prepared by sequentially combining the copper source with a volume of water, then adding the secondary amine complexing agent, thereafter adding the pH modifying substance, and lastly adding the reducing agent as an aqueous component.” can overcome these rejections.
Claim 12, lines 2-3, the term “the aqueous copper sulfate (CuSO4) salt” is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 12, lines 4-5, the term “the aqueous copper sulfate (CuSO4) salt component/water combination” is indefinite because this term lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 12, line 6, is indefinite because the tern “the CH2O” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Amending lines 2-7 of claim 12 to read “copper plating solution is prepared by sequentially combining copper sulphate as the copper source to a volume of water, then adding diisopropanolamine ((CH3CH(OH)CH2)2NH) as the secondary amine complexing agent, thereafter adding NaOH and Na2CO3 as the pH modifying substances, and lastly adding CH20 as the aqueous reducing agent component.” can overcome these rejections.
Claim 14, line 1, is indefinite with regard to the term “the stabilization”. Claim 14, line 2, is indefinite with regard to the term “the bubbling”. These terms lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. Deleting “the” from these terms can overcome these rejections.
Claim 16, line 5, the term “(Na2CO3 and NaOH)” is indefinite because the use of parentheses in the claim language gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. Amending the term “pH modifying substances (Na2CO3 and NaOH) - 0.26 mol/L and 0.5 mol/L, respectively.” to “and the pH modifying substances are a combination of Na2CO3 and NaOH at concentrations of 0.26 mol/L and 0.5 mol/L respectively.” Can overcome this rejection.
Claim 17, line 5, the term “(or more)” is indefinite because the use of parentheses in the claim language gives the appearance that the enclosed language is optional. Deletion of this term can overcome this rejection. Note the term “at least” encompasses coating thicknesses of 30µm “or more.”
Claim 18, line 2, is indefinite because the tern “the initial copper(II) content” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caswell, “Electroless Copper Kit” (Caswell).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Caswell discloses an Electroless Copper Plating Kit including 16fl oz of Electroless Copper A and 16fl oz of Electroless Copper B (Caswell, page 2, lines 1-3 and 25-29). Electroless Copper Part A comprises water, diethanolamine (a secondary amine complexing agent), copper sulfate pentahydrate (a copper source) and sodium hydroxide (a pH modifying substance) (Caswell; pages 5-6, Section 3.1, “Substances”). Electroless Copper Part B comprises water and formaldehyde (the reducing agent of claims 1 and 4) (Caswell; pages 13-14, Section 3.2 “Mixtures”). A substrate is immersed in “Electroless Copper” (i.e., Parts A and B) for up to 60 minutes and rinsed (Caswell; page 2, line 16). Caswell, therefore, anticipates electroless copper plating solutions comprising a secondary amine complexing agent, a copper source, a pH modifying substance, and the reducing agent formaldehyde as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Caswell is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Electroless Copper Parts A and B do not comprise additional stabilizing additives (Caswell; pages 5-6, Section 3.1, “Substances,” and pages 13-14, Section 3.2 “Mixtures”).
Regarding claim 15, Caswell is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Caswell discloses that the system can operate at room temperature (Caswell; page 2, line 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found above.
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 11, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Caswell.
Regarding claim 11, Caswell is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Electroless Copper Part A comprises a combination of water, diethanolamine (a secondary amine complexing agent), copper sulfate pentahydrate (a copper source) and sodium hydroxide (a pH modifying substance) (Caswell; pages 5-6, Section 3.1, “Substances”). Electroless Copper Part B comprises an aqueous reducing agent (i.e., formaldehyde) component, which is used (mixed) with Part A to form “Electroless Copper” (Caswell; pages 13-14, Section 3.2 “Mixtures,” and page 2, line 16).
Although Caswell does not explicitly disclose sequentially combining the copper source with water, then adding the complexing agent, and thereafter adding the pH modifying agent, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process, and given that Caswell meets the requirements of the claimed product, Caswell clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 14, Caswell is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Given that the electroless copper plating solutions of Caswell are substantially identical to the electroless plating solutions of the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that stabilization of the electroless copper plating solution of Caswell would inherently be obtainable by means of bubbling air through the solution as claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 18-19, Caswell is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Given that the electroless copper plating solutions of Caswell are substantially identical to the electroless plating solutions of the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the electroless plating solutions of Caswell would inherently enable reducing more than 98% of the initial copper (II) content to metallic copper coating in 1.5 hours (claim 18), and that the electroless copper plating solution, after electroless copper deposition, can be replenished and repeatedly used (claim 19).
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found above.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratautas et al, US 2019/0360104 A1 (Ratautas) in view of Brüning et al, US 2014/0113158 A1 (Brüning) and Wu et al, US 2012/0160697 A1 (Wu).
Regarding claims 1-10, Ratautas teaches a method for the formation of electroconductive traces on a polymeric surface comprising:
laser treatment of the surface by irradiating the area of the polymeric article on which the metal is to be deposited, thereby forming a laser-excited area,
chemical activation of said laser-excited areas by submerging said polymeric article in an activation solution,
rinsing said polymeric article, and
metal plating said activated polymeric article by submerging into a chemical metallization bath (Ratautas; [0018-0022]).
The activator solution consists of an aqueous solution of silver nitrate or silver diamine complex Ag(NH3)2 (Ratautas; [0027]).
The chemical metallization bath is an electroless copper plating bath (Ratautas; [0030] and [0049]). The copper plating bath contains:
Copper sulfate in a concentration of 0.005-0.25M (copper source of claim 2), formaldehyde in a concentration of 0.0015-6M (reducing agent of claim 4), and a ligand (i.e., complexing agent) in a concentration of 0.15-0.75M (Ratautas; [0030] and [0049]).
A copper sulfate concentration of 0.005-0.25M overlaps in scope with a copper sulfate concentration of about 0.05 mol/L to a solubility limit of the aqueous copper sulfate component as claimed (claim 7).
A formaldehyde concentration of 0.0015-6M overlaps in scope with the formaldehyde concentration of about 0.1 to about 4 mol/L as claimed (claim 9).
A ligand in a concentration of 0.15-0.75M overlaps in scope with the complexing agent concentration of about 0.1 to about 3 mol/L as claimed (claim 8).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
(Di)sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in a concentration of 0.05-0.6M and sodium hydroxide in a concentration of 0.1-2M are used as a buffering environment at pH values of 12-13.5 (the pH modifying substance mixture of claim 5) (Ratautas; [0030]).
A disodium carbonate concentration of from 0.05-0.6M overlaps in scope with the disodium carbonate concentration of from 0.05 to 1.0 mol/L as claimed (claim 10). A sodium hydroxide concentration of from 0.1-2M overlaps falls within the sodium hydroxide concentration of from 0.1 mol/L to 3.0 mol/L as claimed (claim 10).
A pH value of 12-13.5 overlaps in scope with a pH more than 13 as claimed (claim 6).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The ligand is chosen from compounds such as isomers of tartaric acid, EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid), CDTA (1,2-Diaminocyclohexane-N,N,N′,N′-tetraacetic acid), and Quadrol (N,N,N′,N′-Tetrakis(2-hydroxypropyl)ethylenediamine)) (Ratautas; [0030]).
Ratautas further exemplifies electroless copper plating solutions consisting of the following components:
0.12 M Copper (II) sulphate (CuSO4) (copper source); 0.25 M Quadrol ([CH3CH(OH)CH2]2NCH2CH2N[CH2CH(OH)CH3]2) complexing agent; 1.25 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and 0.3 M sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) (pH modifying agents); and 0.34 M formalin (CH2(OH)2) (reducing agent) (Ratautas; [0031]);
0.12 M CuSO4 (copper sulphate) (copper source); 0.35 M sodium potassium tartrate (a tartrate salt complexing agent); 1.25 M NaOH (sodium hydroxide) and 0.3M Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate) (pH modifying agents); and 0.34M CH2O (formaldehyde) (reducing agent) (Ratautas; [0057]); and
0.12 M CuSO4 (copper sulphate) (copper source); 0.35 M sodium potassium tartrate (a tartrate salt complexing agent), 1.25 M NaOH (sodium hydroxide) and 0.3 M Na2CO3 (disodium carbonate) (pH modifying agents); and 0.34M CH2O (formaldehyde) (reducing agent) (Ratautas; [0063]).
Ratautas does not explicitly teach a secondary amine complexing agent (claim 1), wherein the secondary amine complexing agent is diisopropanolamine (claims 3 and 8).
With respect to the difference, Brüning teaches an electroless metal plating method comprising: (i) providing a nonconductive substrate having at least one side surface consisting of a metal or metal alloy; (ii) contacting the substrate with an activator comprising a noble metal; (iii) contacting the substrate with an aqueous solution containing at least one nitrogen-containing substance and a hydroxy carboxylic acid, and (iv) depositing a metal or metal alloy onto the activated surface by means of electroless plating (Brüning; [0010-0014]).
The noble metal activator may comprise silver (Brüning; [0023]).
Preferred nitrogen-containing substances include alkanolamines such as diisopropanolamine (Brüning; [0031-0032] and [0040]). With step (iii) the deposited copper layer shows sufficient adhesion (Brüning; [0062]).
Electroless plating includes copper electroless plating using a bath comprising copper ions, pH modifiers, complexing agents such as EDTA, alkanolamines or tartrate salts, and a reducing agent such as formaldehyde (Brüning; [0050] and [0061]).
Brüning is analogous art as it teaches electroless plating solutions which may comprise copper ions, pH modifiers, complexing agents such as alkanolamines, and a reducing agent such as formaldehyde, and that using an alkanolamine such as diisopropanolamine in a copper electroless plating method enables sufficient adhesion of a copper layer.
In light of the disclosure of Brüning of the equivalence and interchangeability of using EDTA and tartrate salt complexing agents as disclosed in Ratautas with using alkanolamine complexing agents, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an alkanolamine as the complexing agent in the plating solutions of Ratautas, thereby resulting electroless copper plating solutions comprising an alkanolamine complexing agent in the claimed concentrations.
Ratautas in view Brüning do not explicitly teach wherein the alkanolamine complexing agent is a secondary amine or diisopropanolamine as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Wu teaches a process for applying a metal coating to a non-conductive substrate comprising the steps of:
contacting the substrate with an activator comprising a noble metal/group IVa metal sol to obtain a treated substrate;
contact said treated substrate with a solution comprising:
a Cu(II), Ag, Au or Ni soluble metal salt or mixtures thereof;
a source of hydroxide ions; and
a complexing agent for an ion of the metal of said metal salt comprising an organic material having a cumulative formation constant log K of from about 0.73 to about 21.95 for an ion of the metal salt,
wherein the composition of step (b) is treated with an electric current for a period of time prior to or during contacting said solution with the substrate (Wu; [0013-0019]).
The activator noble metals include silver (Wu; [0036]).
Suitable complexing agents include, e.g., 1,2-Diaminocyclohexane-N,N,N′,N′-tetraacetic acid and ethylenediamine N,N,N’,N’-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Wu; [0046]).
Additional complexing agents for copper ions include alkanolamines comprising, for example, diisopropanolamine, as well as acids such as tartaric acid (Wu; [0047]).
Wu is analogous art as it teaches copper plating solutions comprising a Cu(II) soluble metal salt, a source of hydroxide ions, and a complexing agent for copper, wherein the complexing agent may be diisopropanolamine.
Given that the copper complexing agents disclosed by Wu include diisopropanolamine identical to that presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any copper complexing agent in Wu, including the claimed diisopropanolamine, for use as the alkanolamine complexing agent in the copper plating solutions of Ratautas in view Brüning, absent some evidence to the contrary, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider all the copper complexing agents disclosed by Wu to be equivalent and interchangeable and equally suitable, absent a showing of criticality by applicant of the claimed diisopropanolamine.
In MPEP 2141, III, one of the rationales set forth as to “why” the claimed invention would be obvious is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, given that Wu discloses a finite number of alkanolamine copper complexing agents, and given that the reference discloses all the copper complexing agents being equally applicable, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success when using the diisopropanolamine as set forth by the examiner. Further, given that Ratautas in view Brüning teach alkanolamines as suitable complexing agents in electroless copper plating solutions, and given that Brüning teaches that using an alkanolamine such as diisopropanolamine in an electroless plating method enables sufficient adhesion of a copper layer, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success when using the diisopropanolamine.
The fact that “..the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.….”; See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) See also In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (affirming obviousness rejection of claims in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands’ of compounds”).
Regarding claims 11-12, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu teach copper plating baths comprising a combination of the copper source copper sulfate, the complexing agent diisopropanolamine, the pH modifiers NaOH and Na2CO3, and the reducing agent formaldehyde in an aqueous solution (see Ratautas, [0031] and claim 10; Brüning, [0050]; and Wu, (0047]).
Although Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu do not explicitly wherein the electroless copper plating solution is prepared by sequentially combining the copper source (copper sulfate) component to a volume of water, then adding the complexing agent (diisopropanolamine) to the aqueous copper source component/water combination, thereafter adding the pH modifying substance (NaOH and Na2CO3), and lastly adding the aqueous reducing agent component (formaldehyde), it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process, and given that Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu meet the requirements of the claimed product, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu clearly meet the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 13, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The electroless copper plating solutions 1), 2) and 3) as set forth above (page 14) are operated without additional stabilizing additives (Ratautas; [0031], [0057] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Given that the electroless copper plating solutions of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are substantially identical to the electroless plating solutions of the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that stabilization of the electroless copper plating solution of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu would intrinsically be obtainable by means of bubbling air through the solution.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 15, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The electroless copper plating solutions 1), 2) and 3) as set forth above (page 14) are operated at a plating temperature of 30oC (i.e., ambient temperature as claimed) (Ratautas; [0031], [0057] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the compositions may comprise copper sulfate in a concentration of 0.005-0.25M, formaldehyde in a concentration of 0.0015-6M, a complexing agent in a concentration of 0.15-0.75M, disodium carbonate in a concentration of 0.05-0.6M, and sodium hydroxide in a concentration of 0.1-2M (Ratautas; [0030] and [0049]), and wherein the complexing agent may be the alkanolamine diisopropanolamine (Brüning, [0050] and Wu, [0047]).
The claimed concentrations of CuSO4 at 0.11 mol/L; diisopropanolamine at 0.2 mol/L; formaldehyde at 0.38 mol/L; Na2CO3 at 0.26 mol/L; and NaOH at 0.5 mol/L, all fall within the concentrations of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu as set forth above.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ratautas discloses that the plating solution resulted a metal-plated line wherein the narrowest width after 60 minutes is 20.1µm (Ratautas; [0063-0064]).
Further, given that the electroless copper plating solutions of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are substantially identical to the electroless plating solutions of the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the electroless copper plating solutions of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu would intrinsically enable depositing of at least 30 µm thick copper coatings per one hour as claimed.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 18-19, Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Given that the electroless copper plating solutions of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu are substantially identical to the electroless plating solutions of the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the electroless plating solutions of Ratautas in view of Brüning and Wu would intrinsically enable reducing more than 98% of the initial copper (II) content to metallic copper coating in 1.5 hours (claim 18), and that the electroless copper plating solution, after electroless copper deposition, can be replenished and repeatedly used (claim 19).
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellsworth et al, “Effect of Ethanolamines on the Electroless Deposition of Copper on Functionalized Organic Surfaces,” discloses an electroless deposition solution composed of copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate (a copper source), diethanolamine (DEOA) (a secondary amine complexing agent), and dimethylamine borane (a reducing agent). The pH was adjusted using dilute sulfuric acid (a pH modifying substance). See page 4143, col. 1, para 1-2 and col. 2, “2.3 Copper ELD.” See also page 4144, Table 1 (DEOA) and page 4145, Table 2 (DEOA).
Takada et al, US 2021/0262096 A1, discloses an electroless plating bath comprising dimethylamine (a secondary amine complexing agent), copper sulfate pentahydrate (a copper source), hydrazine monohydrate (a reducing agent), wherein the composition is adjusted to a pH of 8 ([0046-0050] and Table 1, Example 8). pH adjustors include sodium hydroxide [0015].
Rejections over Ellsworth et al and Takada et al would be cumulative to the above 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 102/103 rejections over Caswell.
Xu et al, US 2018/0370899 A1, teaches a method for reducing color in alkanolamines (Abstract). The alkanolamines can be used for electroless plating ([0002] and [0034]). Treated alkanolamines include diisopropanolamine ([0013]).
Shipley, U.S. 3,772,105, and Newton, U.S. 3,783,113, teach that diisopropanolamine is a known complexing agent for cupric ions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732