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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two different categories of invention have unity of invention if the claims are drawn one of the following combination of categories including a product and a process of using said product. This is not found persuasive because the special technical does not make a contribution of over the prior art. Thus the single general inventive concept lacks the corresponding special technical feature that is required to fulfill the requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/24/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending examination on merits.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/179897 of Mevellec et al in view of US 12,098,473 of Kitayaporn et al.
As to claim 1, Mevellec teaches of an aqueous cobalt electrodeposition solution (Mevellec p. 2 lines 28-32), comprising:
from 1-5 g/L cobalt (II) ions (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 18-20);
from 1 to 10 g/L chloride ions (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 18-21);
a pH of 1.8 to 4.0 as per a sufficient quantity of a strong acid (Mevellec, p. 5 line 21 and p. 8 lines 16-17); and
organic additives including a first additive of an alpha-hydroxy carboxylic acid (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 22-26).
Mevellec does not teach a second organic additive of polyethyleneimines or benzotriazole.
Mevellec does teach that the electrolyte can contain additional organic compounds that have various functions including being a leveler, as long as it does not cause bottom-up filling (Mevellec, p. 6 lines 22-28).
Mevellec gives various compounds that the additional organic additive cannot be including suppressors and accelerators, but does not give a list of levelers that are not allowed as it seems the levelers are used in combination with the suppressors and accelerators to promote bottom-up filling (Mevellec, p. 7 line 29 thru p. 8 line 12).
Kitayaporn teaches of cobalt electrodeposition and the electrolyte used therein (Kitayaporn, Abstract).
Kitayaporn teaches that additional known components to the cobalt electrolyte solution include additional leveling agents such as benzotriazole that perform the function of providing a substantially planar metal layer on the substrate (Kitayaporn, col 11 lines 26-49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mevellec as per Kitayaporn so as to utilize the desired additional organic additive in providing an additive that allows for a substantially planar metal layer to be formed.
As to claim 2, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 1.
Mevellec teaches that the total concentration of organic additives is 5 mg/L to 200 mg/L which is 5 ppm to 200 ppm (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 30-31).
As to claim 3, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 1.
Mevellec teaches that the sum of the total concentration of organic additives is between 5 ppm to 200 ppm (5 mg/L to 200 mg/L) such that known examples include 15 ppm tartaric acid (Mevellec, p. 15 lines 35-39).
As the total concentration is between 5 ppm to 200 ppm (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 30-31), if the first additive is 15 ppm, this leaves anywhere under 185 ppm for the second organic additive, thus deeming obvious the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05 I and II).
As to claim 4, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 1.
Mevellec additionally teaches the electrolyte does not contain a sulfur compound (Mevellec, p. 5 lines 18-24, p. 6 lines 15-21, p. 7 line 26).
As to claim 5, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 1.
Mevellec teaches the pH between 1.8 and 4.0, including between 2.0 and 2.4, thus anticipating the claimed range (Mevellec, p. 5 line 21 and p. 8 lines 13-15).
As to claim 6, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 5.
Mevellec teaches the first additive is chosen from citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, mandelic acid and glyceric acid (Mevellec, p. 9 lines 6-9).
As to claim 8, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teach to the electrolyte of claim 5.
Mevellec teaches the electrolyte does not contain boric acid (Mevellec, p. 7 lines 27-28).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,777,386 of Doubina et al.
As to claim 7, Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn teaches to the electrolyte of claim 1.
Mevellec and Kitayaporn do not discuss the conductivity of the electrolyte.
It is noted that Mevellec teaches depositing a cobalt layer on a cobalt seed layer (Mevellec, p. 15 lines 15-25).
Doubina teaches of cobalt electrodeposition (Doubina, Abstract).
Doubina additionally teaches that the high resistivity of cobalt seed layers can lead to substantial non-uniformity of thickness of the deposited material. One such way to combat this issue is by reducing the conductivity of the electrolyte such that conductivities between 0.5-10 mS/cm provide good current density uniformity which leads to a more uniform deposition (Doubina, col 19 line 59 thru col 20 line 35, col 21 lines 3-33 and Fig. 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mevellec in view of Kitayaporn as per Doubina so as to utilize the desired conductivity of the electrolyte to mitigate non-uniformity issues in the deposition process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights