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 in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are pending examination.
Specification
It is noted that the Specification has some incongruities. The Summary area discussed forming a first and second metal layer on the substrate such that the second metal layer is less recrystallized than the first metal layer. Then a third metal layer is formed in a different forming operation. This is consistent with claim 1 as currently written.
However, in the Detailed Description area there is no discussion of the second metal layer from the first forming operation. The first metal layer is copper which is formed in a first forming operation. The second metal layer is nickel which is formed in a second forming operation. The second metal layer has the nanometer sized grain and is discussed as being less recrystallized. It is noted that this is not what claim 1 states.
These are different Species of the potential invention (i.e. a three layer structure vs a two layer structure).
For the purpose of examination, the plain language interpretation will be used such that a three layer structure is being examined.
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 3-7 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 3 recites that the second metal layer is formed in the second forming operation. The second forming operation forms the third metal layer as per claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
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 third metal layer as per claim 1.
Similar correction is required in claim 7.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on claim 5.
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.
Claims 3-7 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 3 states that the second forming operation, the second metal layer comprising Ni, Pt, Ru, Rh. In claim 1, the second forming operation forms the third metal layer.
Additionally the second metal layer is formed in the first forming step.
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent on claim 3.
Claim 5 recites that the second forming operation forms the second metal layer. In claim 1, the second forming operation forms the third metal layer.
Claim 6 recites the first plating solution for plating the first metal layer, however, it does not give insight into how the second metal layer is formed form the first forming operation as per claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the second plating solution is used for plating the second metal layer in the second forming operation. As per claim 1, the second forming operation forms the third metal layer.
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.
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 1-4 and 12 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, a third 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).
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.
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
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 3, Lomasney in view of Lee teach to the method of claim 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 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).
As to claim 12, Lomasney in view of Lee teach to the method of claim 1.
This claim describes the use and comparison of a one or two layer structure to a multilayer structure of claim 1.
As Lomasney in view of Lee teach the structure of claim 1, the properties when used will be the same (see MPEP 2112.01 I and II).
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 (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 use of sodium dodecyl sulfate or 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 and SDS at a concentration range of 1,000 ppm or less to reduce the surface tension in the plating solution for deposition (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 the copper layer as desired.
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