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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/23/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending examination.
The amendment to the specification is accepted. The 112(b) rejections to claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
The 112(d) rejection to claims 3-4 are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that new limitations to claim 1 include:
wherein the second metal layer comprises a metal including at least one selected from among Ni, Pt, Ru, and Rh, is less recrystallized than the first metal layer, is comprised of nanometer-size grains, and has a higher level of tensile strength than the first metal layer.
Claim 1 already recited “wherein the second metal layer is less recrystallized than the first metal layer, the second metal layer is comprised of nanometer-size grains, and second metal layer has a higher level of tensile strength than the first metal layer.”
Therefore these limitations are redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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 5 states a second plating solution is used to form the second plating layer in the second forming operation. The second forming operation forms the metal layer NOT formed in the first forming operation as per claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 5.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that second metal layer is formed in the first forming operation. Appropriate correction to claim 5 is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites that the second forming operation forms the second metal layer. In claim 1, the second forming operation forms the metal layer not formed in the first forming operation, which includes the second metal layer.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that second metal layer is formed in the first forming operation.
Appropriate correction to claim 5 is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,242,613 of Lomasney in view of KR 10-2184414 of Lee et al.
As to claim 1, Lomasney teaches of a method of manufacturing a multilayer metal plate by electroplating (Lomasney, Abstract), the method comprising:
a first forming operation of forming one of a first metal layer and a second metal layer on a substrate by electroplating (Lomasney, col 6 line 54 thru col 7 line 2), and
a second forming operation of forming, by electroplating, an additional metal layer not formed in the first forming operation on a surface of one of the first metal layer and the second metal layer formed in the first forming operation (Lomasney, col 7 lines 3-13 and Fig. 1).
Lomasney teaches that metal layers formed in the first forming step (i.e. including the first metal layer) comprises Cu (Lomasney, col 5 lines 39-51); and
the metal layer formed in the second forming step is Ni (Lomasney, col 5 lines 39-51).
As seen in Fig. 1, a first forming step is performed to form first and second metal layers on a substrate by electroplating. The electroplated substrate is then electroplated to form a third metal layer in a second electroforming step.
Lomasney does not specifically teach the second metal layer is less recrystallized than the first metal layer, the second metal layer is comprised of nanometer- size grains, the second metal layer having a higher level of tensile strength than the first metal layer and that the first metal layer has 3-8 grains in a thickness direction of the first metal layer.
Lee teaches of a method of producing high strength multilayer metal products formed by electroplating (Lee, [0010]).
Lee teaches that a multilayer metal structure is formed by alternating layers of recrystallizable plating layer and a recrystallization inhibiting layer such that the recrystallization inhibiting layer comprises nanometer sized grains (Lee, [0013], [0019] – [0020] and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee states that the grains per layer in the recrystallizable plating layer is controlled by not only the thickness of the layer, but also can be controlled by the plating parameters (Lee, [0020] and [0035]). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art could optimize the number of grains within the layer as per Lee.
As seen as an example, the recrystallizable layer includes 3 grains in the thickness direction as per Fig. 1 .
Additionally, as seen in Fig. 1 and discussed in the specification, the thickness of the recrystallization inhibiting layer is on the nanometer scale such that the grains in the layer are also on the nanometer scale.
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 Lomasney as per Lee so as to utilize the desired stacked structure formed in the first forming operation in order to form a product with increased strength and durability.
As to claim 2, Lomasney in view of Lee teach to the method of claim 1.
Lomasney teaches the thickness of the multilayer plate (Lomasney, col 7 lines 60-66). As to the tensile strength, this is a property of the product and thus present (see MPEP 2112.01 I and II).
As to claim 4, Lomasney in view of Lee teach to the method of claim 1.
Lomasney teaches that the layers can have variable thicknesses and different thicknesses such that the thickness is a result of the deposition process, thus optimizable through routine optimization (Lomasney, col 7 line 44 thru col 8 line 33 and MPEP 2144.05 IIA).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomasney in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0291508 of Tajiri et al.
As to claim 5, Lomasney in view of Lee teach to the method of claim 1.
Lomasney teaches that nickel containing plating solutions include nickel ions, chloride ions, boric acid, sodium dodecyl sulfate (Lomasney, Table 2).
Lomasney does not teach the nickel bath has saccharin in it.
Lomasney also does not specifically teach the copper plating solution.
Lee teaches that when plating a copper plating layer to utilize a copper plating bath comprising copper ions, sulfuric acid, chloride ions, a plating suppressor such as polyethylene glycol and a plating accelerator (Lee, [0026]), thus being capable of forming the desired copper layer configuration to form the high strength layers therein (Lee, [0027]).
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 Lomasney as per Lee so as to utilize the desired copper plating bath in order to form the layered structure in forming a high strength product.
As modified, Lomasney in view of Lee do not teach the saccharin in the nickel plating solution.
Tajiri teaches of plating a nickel cobalt alloy by using a Watt type plating bath (which is what Lomasney uses in Table 2) (Tajiri, [0054]).
Tajiri additionally teaches that within the plating bath to utilize saccharin as a grain refiner to improve the deposit (Tajiri, [0059]).
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 Lomasney in view of Lee as per Tajiri so as to utilize saccharin in the plating solution in order to improve the deposit.
As to claim 7, Lomasney in view of Lee and Tajiri teach to the method of claim 5.
Lomasney teaches the nickel ion concentration at approximately 1.7 M, chloride ions at approximately 0.25 M, boric acid at 0.64 M (Lomasney, Table 2).
Lomasney also teaches that the deposition can be performed at between 0.5 and 2000 mA/cm2 (Lomasney, col 8 lines 4-30).
Lomasney does not specifically teach the sodium dodecyl sulfate concentration and the saccharin concentration.
Tajiri teaches of plating a nickel cobalt alloy by using a Watt type plating bath (which is what Lomasney uses in Table 2) (Tajiri, [0054]).
Tajiri teaches that the saccharin can be utilized in a concentration of between 0.001 and 0.005 M (Tajiri, [0060]), such that the inclusion of saccharin improves the deposit.
Tajiri also teaches that SDS can be used at a concentration of 10 to 1000 ppm which is approximately 0.01 to 1 g/L. At 1 g/L that is approximately 0.0034 M (Tajiri, [0061]) which allows for reduced pitting in the deposit.
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 Lomasney in view of Lee as per Tajiri so as to utilize the desired concentration of components in order to produce an improved nickel deposit.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomasney in view of Lee and Tajiri as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2010/0330425 Lopatin et al.
As to claim 6, Lomasney in view of Lee and Tajiri teach to the method of claim 5.
Lomasney teaches that the applied current can be between 0.5 and 2000 mA/cm2 (Lomasney, col 8 lines 4-30).
Lomasney does not teach the copper plating solution composition.
Lee teaches that when plating a copper plating layer to utilize a copper plating bath comprising copper ions (0.1 M to 1 M), sulfuric acid (0.1 M to 2 M, chloride ions (0.01 to 0.1 mM), a plating suppressor such as polyethylene glycol (0.01 to 0.5 mM) and a plating accelerator such as SPS (10 to 200 µM) (Lee, [0026]), thus being capable of forming the desired copper layer configuration to form the high strength layers therein (Lee, [0027]).
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 Lomasney as per Lee so as to utilize the desired concentration of components in the copper plating solution in making a high strength component.
Lomasney in view of Lee do not teach the PEG concentration.
Lopatin teaches of method for electroplating on a substrate (Lopatin, [0011] – [0012] and [0050]).
Lopatin teaches that the solution include copper ions (when plating copper) such that the plating solution can further include additives such as PEG in a concentration of 20 ppb to 600 ppm to control the plating process (Lopatin, [0063] – [0065] and [0069]).
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 Lomasney in view of Lee and Tajiri as per Lopatin so as to utilize the desired plating solution additives in effectively forming and controlling the copper layer deposited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Lomasney nor Lee disclose that the first metal layer has 3-8 grains in a thickness direction, however, this is not persuasive.
While not specifically stating the number of grains in the thickness direction, Lee teaches that the number of grains in the thickness direction is controlled by the thickness of the layer as well as the plating parameters. Therefore the number of grains is a result-effective variable that can be controlled and optimized by the plating conditions as taught by Lee.
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 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