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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 07/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 –
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kohl [US 20080073795].
Claim 1: Kohl teaches a method for forming an integrated circuit [abstract] where the method comprises producing a copper composite structure [0006], and the first step of forming a pillar copper structure [0011], and a second step of annealing the copper pillar structure under a nitrogen atmosphere [0011].
Claim 2: Kohl teaches the copper pillar structure is made of copper [0006].
Claim 3: Kohl teaches the copper pillar structure is formed by forming a template having a hole defined there, and plating copper so as to fill the hold via electroplating (molds) [0038; 0043] or electroless plating [0010-0011].
Claim 4: Kohl teaches annealing temperatures can be low temperatures that are appropriate for epoxy boards [0024], but also teaches the annealing can occur in other environments and other temperatures [0052] such as about 400 degrees C [0058].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen [US 20070003698].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 5. Chen is provided.
Claim 5: Chen teaches a method of forming a copper growth for interconnects [title] wherein a copper pillar can be annealed at a temperature of 100-400 degrees C [0087] and 10 minutes to 1 hours or about 30 minutes [0087] and under the pressure of 2-10 Torr [0087] where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to anneal under the claimed annealing conditions since Chen teaches these are operable and known ranges for annealing post copper deposition interconnects.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chandler [Rationally 3D-textured copper surfaces for Laplace pressure imbalance-induced enhancement in dropwise condensation].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 6. Chandler is provided.
Claim 6: Chander teaches 3-D texture comprising a copper surfaces having a hybrid structure of microscale size and fine protrusions of nanoscale size formed on the copper surfaces [abstract; Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hybrid structure for the taught copper pillar structure because Chander teaches this 3-D textured structure allows for enhanced heat transfer [abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
