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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 16 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 5/27/2026. Claim 18 is canceled. Claims 9-17 and 19-20 remain withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ueda et al. US 5,541,007 (Ueda).
Ueda teaches an Al alloy that applies to the claimed material as follows:
Al alloy material
Instant application
Ueda (broad) (abstract)
Ueda (Sample 4 Table 1)
Aluminum (Al)
99-99.8 wt%
Balance
Balance
Copper (Cu)
0.1-0.5 wt%
0.01-3.0 wt%
0.50 wt%
Scandium (Sc)
0.1-0.5 wt%
0.01-1.0 wt%
0.20 wt%
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the Al amount in Sample 4 of Ueda(Table 1) is calculated to be 99.3 wt%. Therefore, the Al alloy in Sample 4 as taught by Ueda anticipates the claimed material having the claimed alloy composition. Additionally, the language “for a metal line in a semiconductor device” merely states the intended use for the claimed material and does not provide any further limitations that distinguish the claimed material from the Al alloy in Sample 4 of Ueda.
Additionally, the amended limitation “wherein the metal line is formed by performing a heat treatment on the alloy at a temperature in a range of 200°C to 500°C by flowing gas including H2, N2, D2, Ar, or any combination thereof” is directed to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim. It is well settled that a product-by-process claim defines a product, and that when the prior art discloses a product substantially the same as that being claimed, the burden falls upon the applicant to show that any process steps associated therewith results in a product materially different from that disclosed in the prior art. See In re Thorpe, (227 USPQ 964), In re Brown, (173 USPQ 685), In re Fessman, (180 USPQ 524) and MPEP 2113. In this case, since the Al alloy in Sample 4 of Ueda has the same composition as claimed, the burden falls upon the applicant to show that the amended heat treatment would result in an Al alloy that is materially different from the Al alloy of Ueda.
Regarding claim 2, the amount of copper in Sample 4 of Ueda is greater than the amount of scandium as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim recites a change rate calculated based on the material grain size before and after a heat treatment. However, this limitation merely quantifies the percentage grain size change, it does not contain further limitations that materially differentiates the claimed Al alloy material from the Al alloy material of Ueda.
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim recites how grain size of the claimed material is measured, which does not provide further limitation that materially distinguishes the claimed Al alloy material from the Al alloy material of Ueda.
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim recites the grain size before the heat treatment, which is not directed to the final Al alloy product, therefore, does not materially distinguishes the claimed Al alloy material from the Al alloy material of Ueda.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda.
The teachings of Ueda are discussed in section 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, the ratio of Cu to Sc calculated based on the broader scope of the Al alloy composition is 1:1 (ratio of [lower limits of 0.01wt% Cu to 0.01 wt% of Sc] to 3:1[higher limits of 3.0wt% Cu to 1.0 wt% of Sc]), which is equivalent to 33-100 parts by weight of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy of Ueda.
The implicit amount of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy composition of Ueda would have encompasses the claimed 50-70 parts by weight of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed amount of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy composition from the amount of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy composition of Ueda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the amount of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy composition of Ueda teach the same utility, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular 50-70 parts by weight of Sc per 100 parts by weight of Cu in the Al alloy composition is significant.
Regarding claim 5, the broader scope of Ueda includes an Al alloy composition that encompasses the claimed Al99.5Cu0.3Sc0.2. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Al alloy composition from the Al alloy composition of Ueda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the Al alloy composition of Ueda teach the same utility, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular Al alloy composition is significant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that the Ueda does not teach the claimed amended feature “wherein the metal line is formed by performing a heat treatment on the alloy at a temperature in a range of 200°C to 500°C by flowing gas including H2, N2, D2, Ar, or any combination thereof”.
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 in section 4 above, the amended limitation “wherein the metal line is formed by performing a heat treatment on the alloy at a temperature in a range of 200°C to 500°C by flowing gas including H2, N2, D2, Ar, or any combination thereof” is directed to a process limitation in a product-by-process claim. It is well settled that a product-by-process claim defines a product, and that when the prior art discloses a product substantially the same as that being claimed, the burden falls upon the applicant to show that any process steps associated therewith results in a product materially different from that disclosed in the prior art. See In re Thorpe, (227 USPQ 964), In re Brown, (173 USPQ 685), In re Fessman, (180 USPQ 524) and MPEP 2113. In this case, since the Al alloy in Sample 4 of Ueda has the same composition as claimed, the burden falls upon the applicant to show that the amended heat treatment would result in an Al alloy that is materially different from the Al alloy of Ueda.
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 LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights