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, Claims 1-9 and 16 in the reply filed on 21 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there it should be no undue burden to consider all the claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive.
A serious search burden exists since the inventions require different fields of search. As set forth in the Requirement for Restriction, the searches would require searching different classes and subclasses; utilizing different electronic resources; and employing different search strategies; and performing different search queries. Applicant did not set forth arguments disputing the different fields of search in the conclusory argument that no serious search burden exists. Therefore, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-15 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 21 May 2026.
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.
Claim 9 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 9 sets forth roughness values of the first and second surfaces. However, this claim does not provide guidance as to how this roughness value is determined. Roughness of surfaces can be measured in a variety of different methods that yield different results. For example, the roughness can be measured by the arithmetic average roughness, mean peak-to-valley height, root mean square roughness, total height, skewness, and peakedness. Each of these values would yield different results. It is not clear what methodology is utilized to determine the roughness value. For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting this to mean any of the possible roughness methodologies are utilized.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW I746383B (For ease of reference, corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0282389 will be utilized as translation and cited herein as “Chen”).
In regards to independent claim 1, Chen is directed to a nano-twinned copper layer with a doped metal element. (¶2) The shape of the nano-twinned copper layer is not particularly limited and may be a foil. (¶32) The foil by its nature would have first and second surfaces.
Plural twinned grains in the nano-twinned copper layer may be formed by stacking nano-twinned grains along a (111) crystal axis. (¶17) At least 50% of an area of the surface of the nano-twinned copper layer may expose a (111) surface of the twinned grains, so the surface of the nano-twinned copper layer has a preferred direction of (111). (¶18) The (111) surface of the nano-twinned grains exposed on the surface of the nano-twinned copper layer may be 50% to 99% of the total area of the surface area of the nano-twinned copper layer. (¶18) These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 2, at least 50% in volume of the nano-twinned copper layer may comprise plural twinned grains. (¶11) The amount may be 50% to 99%. (¶11) This range overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 3, the twinned grains in the nano-twinned copper layer may be columnar grains stacked along the (111) crystal axis. (¶19)
As to claim 4, the diameter of the plural twinned grains may be ranged from 0.1 to 50 microns. (¶22) This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 5, the thickness of the plural twinned grains may respectively be ranged from 0.1 to 500 microns. This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 6, as seen in Figures 4 and 7, the plural twined grains are connected to each other.
As to claim 7, the lamination direction of the nanotwins is not particularly limited and may range from 0 to 60 degrees, including 0 to 20 degrees. (¶17) These ranges overlap the claimed range.
As to claim 8, the thickness of the nano-twinned copper layer may be adjusted according to the need, including from a range of 0.1 to 500 microns. (¶21) This range overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 9, the surface of the foil is polished by electropolishing, where the solution for the electropolishing comprised 100 ml of H3PO4, 1 ml of acetic acid and 1 ml of glycerol. (¶52) The specimen to be polished was placed onto the anode, and the electropolishing was performed under 1.75 V for 10 min. (¶52) By electropolishing, it could level the surface of the nano-twinned copper layer, and facilitate the silver ion attaching to the surface of the nano-twinned copper layer in the subsequent vapor deposition process. (¶52)
This is the same method set forth in the instant application for producing the claimed roughness values. The instant application sets forth that an upper surface of the nano-twinned copper metal layer was polished, wherein the composition of the electrolytic polishing solution was 100 ml of phosphoric acid together with 1 ml of acetic acid and 1 ml of glycerin. (¶56 of Specification) Meanwhile, a test piece to be electropolished was clamped at the anode, applied with a voltage of 1.75 V for 10 minutes to achieve the effect of electropolishing. (¶56 of Specification)
Consequently, absent a showing to the contrary, it appears that the product in the prior art necessarily or inherently possesses the characteristics of the claimed product, including the surface roughness values as set forth within the instant claim.
As to claim 16, the nano-twinned copper layer has high electrical conductivity and high thermal conductivity and can be applied to various electronic components. (¶10) The nano-twinned copper layer may be applied to a through hole or via of a three dimensional integrated circuit, a pin through hole of a packaging substrate, a metal interconnect, a substrate circuit, or a connector. (¶33) The nano-twinned copper layer may be provided on a substrate. (¶29) The substrate may have a single-layer or a multi-layer structure. (¶29) In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the nano-twinned copper layer may be prepared by the following steps: providing an electrodeposition device, comprising an anode, a cathode, a plating solution and a power supply, wherein the power supply is respectively connected to the cathode and the anode, and the cathode and the anode are immersed into the plating solution; and performing an electrodeposition process with the electrodeposition device to grow the nano-twinned copper layer on a surface of the cathode. (¶28) Therefore, the copper layer would be a bonding unit between a first and second substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights