-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 .
The amendment of January 23, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 14 is canceled and claims 1-13, 15-20 and new claim 21 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu et al (US 2003/0111729) in view of McConnell et al (US 6165912) and Japan 01-119676 (hereinafter ‘676), EITHER alone OR further in view of Japan 2921004 (hereinafter ‘004).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 19: Leu teaches a plating method (note 0031). The method includes providing a plating bath (electroless bath, as desired by claim 7) (note 0031). A patterned substrate is provided, where the patterned substrate comprises at least one metal interconnect which would have an exposed contact surface (to be plated over with a diffusion layer) that would be exposed to the plating bath and where the patterned substrate is contacted with the plating bath (note figures 1A, 1B, 7, note interconnects 112, 116, and diffusion barrier layers 114, 118, for example, 0021, 0031 with immersion/contact of substrate in bath and plating). The interconnect can be made of a first metal characterized by a first reduction potential (where it is described that the interconnect material can be copper as desired by claims 2, 9, 15, or copper alloy or doped copper, which would have the material of copper as well, giving an interconnect made of this first metal/copper, note 0060, 0028). It is further described that a diffusion layer is electroless plated (as desired by claim 7 and 19) on the contact surface of the metal interconnect, where the diffusion layer is made of a second material such as silver (as desired by claims 3, 9, 15, note figures 1A, 2A, 7 and 0031-0032, 0070, where the ions reduced to form the metal diffusion layer can be simply silver, (and also for claim 3 can be gold, palladium or platinum) and which would have a second reduction potential larger than the reduction potential of the first metal of copper as desired by claim 1, noting present claim 3, as well note that an initial counter displacement plating can occur in Leu, 0035, which would need such a relative reduction potential). The electroless plating bath would comprise one or more ions of the second metal (silver) (note 0031). For present claim 1, the bath can also contain a grain refining compound that reduces the formation of pinhole defects in the diffusion layer in the form of glyoxylic acid (as desired by claim 4, would be considered “grain refining compound” to the extent claimed, because the same composition as claimed for such material) (note 0037, 0039).
(A) As to the plating bath supplied in a plating chamber and providing contacting the substrate with the bath in the plating chamber, and the temperature of the plating bath during plating (claim 8, 9), McConnel teaches that electroless plating of electronic components can be provided in a vessel (chamber) (note column 3, lines 15-25), where the parts being plated can be those with interconnects (note column 4, lines 45-55). For plating, the components/substrates are contacted with the plating solution/bath in the plating chamber so both would be in the plating chamber (note column 4, lines 45-55, column 5, lines 15-20, column 9, lines 5-15), where the plating bath can be that which contains metal ions/salts which are reduced for form the metal plating where the metal ions can be silver (giving a silver plating) (and also gold, platinum, palladium) (note column 9, lines 10-30). It is further described that the plating bath can be at a temperature of less than about 35 degrees C, such as about 15-30 degrees C during plating, for example (note column 11, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leu to specifically provide that the plating bath is provided in a plating chamber and the substrate is also provided in the plating chamber for contact with the bath for plating as suggested by McConnell with an expectation of predictably acceptable results since Leu indicates providing a plating bath and contacting the bath with an interconnect containing substrate for electroless plating, and McConnell indicates providing electroless plating, including of silver, can be provided to an electronic substrate (which can include those with interconnects) by providing the plating bath and the substrate in a plating chamber. Additionally, as desired by claims 8 and 9, McConnell would further suggest that such plating can be provided while the temperature of the plating bath can be less than 35 degrees C (overlapping the range of claim 8 as now claimed, and also claim 9) or 15-30 degrees C, overlapping the claimed range (of claim 9), suggesting a predictably acceptable bath temperature to use when providing the plating process of Leu in view of McConnell. It would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range of each of claims 8 and 9. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
(B) Furthermore, as to applying a floating potential to the plating bath, Leu notes that along with plating with silver, etc. copper or nickel can also be plated from the electroless bath (note 0031-0032). McConnell also notes that copper or nickel plating can be provided as well as silver (note column 9, lines 10-30).
‘676 describes how an electroless plating bath (here for nickel) can be provided with a negative potential/charge (note the charge indicated at figure 3) to the plating bath solution (from rods 6), and performing electroless plating of nickel on the substrate when the charge applied (translation, pages 1-2, figure 3). The plating can be provided to a metal coated (the applied palladium layer) surface of a substrate (ceramic substrate) (translation, pages 1-2). A positive charge/potential is applied to the substrate holder (basket) and the tank/walls holding the plating solution to prevent plating occurring on the holder and tank, and when combined with the negative potential from the rods allows for the substrate to be plated, but not the holder/tank, which reduces the amount of metal (nickel) consumed (note figured 3, translation, pages 1-2). It is understood that this negative charge provides a floating potential (note 0042 of the specification as filed indicating providing a negative charge to the bath to provide the floating potential).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leu in view of McConnell to provide applying a negative charge/floating potential to the plating bath along with the plating as suggested by ‘676 with an expectation of providing desirable plating of the metal on the substrate and avoiding plating of the plating chamber, etc. since Leu and McConnell teaches plating silver and similarly nickel by electroless plating onto a substrate from a bath that would be in a chamber, and ‘676 indicates how providing negative charge/floating potential to a nickel electroless bath and positive potential/charge to the tank/chamber walls, holder helps provide a desirable plating of the metal coated substrate and prevent plating of the tank/chamber walls saving on the amount of nickel used, and since Leu and McConnell teaches the similar process silver and nickel electroless plating, it would be expected that similar results would occur for silver electroless plating. Further, while McConnell provides substrates and plating solution in the chamber, it would at least have been obvious that the solution/bath can be provided into the chamber (and then charged) (as shown by ‘676), and as claimed it is not prevented from the substrate being added before or after the potential applied, or as to specifically the substrates provided to the bath in the chamber after the potential applied, this would be considered acceptable with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as ‘676 shows how the substrate can be provided to a plating device, the plating bath can be provided in a tank/chamber (and then charged) (note translation, pages 1-2, figure 1), and as well, noting In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.), it would have been obvious that the mixing of the substrates/plating solution would be acceptably provided by first providing the plating solution in the tank, then charging, and then adding the substrates.
Optionally, further using ‘004, as to providing the negative potential as a negative charge, ‘004 further describes how when providing an electroless nickel plating on a substrate with metal based catalyst applied (the palladium catalyst) a negative charge can be provided by applying a DC voltage of about -100 V to the substrate to help plate (note pages 2-3, translation), thus indicating when providing a negative charge to help plate a surface it can be using a negative charge in volts as described by applicant. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leu in view of McConnell and ‘676 to specifically provide the negative potential in the form of applying a negative charge of about -100 V as suggested by ‘004 with an expectation of providing a desirable plating, because in ‘676 the negative potential is to counter positive charge that prevents plating, so the negative potential would be charge to provide plating, and ‘004 indicates that such a charge helps provide electroless plating to a surface.
Claims 4, 13: As noted above, Leu indicates glycoxylic acid can be present in the plating bath. Additionally, Leu notes that chelating agents can be present in the plating bath (note 0042). McConnell further teaches that conventional complexants (chelating agents) for use include EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) (note column 9, lines 45-60), giving a further suggested chelating agent to use. Both of these materials would be considered “grain refining compounds” to the extent claimed, because they are the same compositions as claimed for such materials.
Claim 5: As to the concentration of stabilizer, Leu indicates that the glyoxylic acid can be present in an amount of 0-5 g/L (note 0039-0040), where the Examiner takes Official Notice that glyoxylic acid has a mol. weight of about 74 g/mol, giving a range of about 0-0.68 mol/L, overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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). When using EDTA, Leu indicates to use an amount of about 5-70 g/L (note 0042). The Examiner takes Official Notice that EDTA has a mol. weight of about 292 g/mol, giving a range of about 0.017 to about 0.25 mol/L, overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 10: as to the concentration of silver ions in the plating bath, McConnell would indicate that the concentration of metal/silver ions in a plating bath can be 0.005-0.7 M (mols/L), overlapping the claimed range (note column 10, lines 10-20), giving a suggested acceptable amount to use, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 11: McConnell further suggests providing the plating rate of less than about 1 nm/min (note column 10, line 65 to column 11, line 5), in the claimed range.
Claim 12: As to the thickness of the diffusion layer, Leu suggests a thickness of about 5 nm to about 300 nm (note 0029), overlapping the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to optimize from such a range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Further as to the absence of pinhole defects, this would be suggested as (1) the same grain refining compound/plating process for such features is provided (note discussion for claim 1, 4, 5, 13), so the same results expected. Note 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). (2) it would be suggested to only using platings without such defects, so that full diffusion protection is provided.
Claim 17: As to the less than about 5 pinhole defects per bond pad, Leu indicates that the plating can be over a pad (understood to be inclusive of a bond pad) (note 0034), where providing multiple bond bands on the surface would simply be a matter of predictably duplication of parts (where the results would be expected, note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further as to low amount of pinhole defects for each pad claimed, this would be suggested as (1) the same grain refining compound/plating process for such features is provided (note discussion for claim 1, 4, 5, 13), so the same results expected. Note 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). (2) it would be suggested to only using platings without such defects, so that full diffusion protection is provided.
Claim 18: As to plating a thickness of greater than or about 1 nm in less than or about 30 seconds, while McConnell indicates that less than about 1 nm/min is preferable (note column 10, line 65 to column 11, line 5), it also notes that it is desirable to provide a plating contact time sufficient to deposit a thickness of at least 5 nm, including 20-50 nm, and that such contact time for plating can be at least about 1 minute (note column 11, lines 35-45), at least suggesting that a plating time of up to 1 nm per 12 seconds (5 nm in one minute) is also acceptable. This would give a plating time overlapping that of claim 18, and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 20: Leu would indicate that the substrate can also comprise silicon (note SiO2 in the ILD layers, so silicon in this, 0023).
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu in view of McConnell and ‘676, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘004 as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2014/0242288).
Claim 6: Further as to the plating bath comprising imidazole or succinimide, Hashimoto further teaches a silver electroless plating composition (note 0001), where it is indicated that complexing agents used for the silver electroless plating solution can used EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) and also succinimide which can be used in combination with the EDTA or alone (note 0047).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leu in view of McConnell and ‘676, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘004 to further use succinimide in the plating bath as suggested by Hashimoto with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, as McConnell would suggest how complexing agents like EDTA can be used, and Hashimoto indicates how in a silver electroless bath, succinimide can be used with EDTA or in place of EDTA as a complexing agent. The succinimide would be considered “stabilizer” to the extent claimed, because it is the same composition as claimed for such material.
Claim 21: When using a silver plating bath composition as suggested by Hashimoto as discussed for claim 6 above, Hashimoto also indicates using the solution to help form a plating film having excellent appearance, reflective characteristics without excessive roughening of the plating metal (note 0031), and therefore would further suggest providing a smooth, reflective surface, and by providing all claimed application features, the resulting roughness being as claimed would also be expected. Note 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), or at the least it would be suggested to optimize the resulting roughness to get a coating with good reflectance, etc. Addtionally, when using ‘004, this would further suggest the optimized roughness to be in the claimed range, where ‘004 indicates that providing the voltage helps give uniform growth thickness (note page 2, translation), that is an even thickness on the suggested non-excessively roughened layer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leu in view of McConnell and ‘676, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘004 as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 above, and further specifically in view of ‘004.
Claim 16: As to the floating potential voltage,
‘004 further describes how when providing an electroless nickel plating on a substrate with metal based catalyst applied (the palladium catalyst) a negative charge can be provided by applying a DC voltage of about -100 V to the substrate to help plate (note pages 2-3, translation), thus indicating when providing a negative charge to help plate a surface it can be using a negative charge in volts as described by applicant. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leu in view of McConnell and ‘676, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘004 to specifically optimize the amount of voltage provided, giving a value in the claimed range, as suggested by ‘004 with an expectation of providing a desirable plating, because in ‘676 the negative potential is to counter positive charge that prevents plating, so the negative potential would be charge to provide plating and thus one would optimize the amount used, and ‘004 indicates that such a charge helps provide electroless plating to a surface, giving an example of about -100 V. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Eliash et al (US 5298131) notes using sweep signals to monitor in-tank metal ion content in a plating bath (abstract), where the sweep signal can be swept from about +1.0 volts to abut -1.0 volts (note column 4, lines 50-60). McTeer et al (US 6455424) also notes relative reduction potential of copper and silver, gold, platinum, etc. (note column 6, lines 45-65, column 7, lines 1-5). Morgenstern (US 2001/0137288) notes nickel and cobalt, for example, having a reduction potential less than copper (note 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejection, it is argued that unlike Leu and McConnell, ‘676/Oyama is related to plating nickel on Pd, where Ni has a reduction potential less than Pd, and so is directed to a different process than Leu and one would not be suggested to combine Leu and McConnell with ‘676, where ‘676 indicates the reason for applying the negative potential charge is to reduce adhesion of nickel to chamber components. It is also argued that ‘004/Hirose is directed to plating nickel on gold, where Ni has a lower reduction potential than Au, and so again not suggested to be combined with Leu and McDonnell, where the purpose is to provide uniform thickness of the plated metal.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. While Leu describes applying silver on copper, for example, it also describes that the metal to be plated (primary metal) on copper, along with silver can be nickel or cobalt, which have lower reduction potentials than copper. Therefore, the Leu process is understood to be acceptable with either metals such as silver with a higher reduction potential than copper or a lower reduction potential like nickel. Thus, it is understood that the process of ‘676 is also relevant to Leu, and with the understanding from Leu that the plating can be using metal with higher or lower reduction potential than the base metal, it would be expected that the benefits of ‘676 apply to other metals as described by Leu, with the added potential giving the features described, and thus the references would be combinable, and similarly McConnell would be combinable. While ‘676 teaches not plating chamber components instead of the substrate, where positive potential applied to tank and basket to help prevent plating, this is not prevented by the present claims. The same point as to the relative reduction potentials applies to ‘004, where again Leu would allow for the metal to be plated to have either a higher or lower potential than the base metal, and so the process of ‘004 would also be relevant to Leu. Applying a negative voltage to help provide a uniform thickness is not prevented by the present claims.
As to the claim 8 temperature, McConnell is not limited to a range of 15-30 degrees C, where the broad teaching is less than about 35 degrees C, which would overlap with the claimed temperature and give a range to be optimized from. Note MPEP 2123(I), “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).”
As to the claim 16 voltage, note the adjustment to the rejection above as to the suggestion to optimize, from which the range claimed would be provided.
As to the new claim 21, note the suggestion of the claimed features as discussed in the rejection above.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights