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
Claims 1 and 23-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/15/2026. Applicant amended the claims to incorporate claims 2-15 into the elected Group II. Thus claims 2-22 are now in Group II and fully examined.
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 15 is 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 15 recites the electrolyte free of any accelerator or lever, while being dependent on claim 16, which requires the both accelerator and lever. 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 20190368064 A1) in view of Banik et al. (WO 2020092244 A1).
Considering claim 16, Richardson discloses a method of electrodepositing copper on a substrate comprising: contacting a surface of a substrate and at least one anode with copper electrolyte solution comprising: a copper salt [0021], a source of halide ions [0023], a suppressor comprising a linear or branch polyhydroxyl [0124], an accelerator comprising an organic sulfur compound [0136] and a leveler comprising a quaternary nitrogen compound [0083].
Richardson does not disclose depositing a high density of nanotwinned columnar copper grains.
However, Banik discloses a copper structure having a high density of nanotwinned copper deposited on a substrate. Banik does not describe any particular electrolytic copper plating bath but instead describes electroplating conditions, including applying a pulsed current waveform that alternates between constant current and no current, where the duration of no current being applied is substantially greater than a duration of a constant current being applied [0008]. Furthermore, Banik teaches that nanotwinned copper (nt-Cu) exhibits excellent mechanical and electrical properties and may be used in a wide variety of applications in wafer level packaging and advanced packaging designs [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of forming high density nanotwinned copper in the method of Richardson, because Banik discloses a copper structure having a high density of nanotwinned copper deposited on a substrate by applying a pulsed current waveform that alternates between constant current and no current because nanotwinned copper (nt-Cu) exhibits excellent mechanical and electrical properties and may be used in a wide variety of applications in wafer level packaging and advanced packaging designs .
Considering claim 2, Richardson discloses the copper salt is copper sulfate [0021].
Considering claim 3, Richardson discloses sulfuric acid or methane sulfonic acid [0021].
Considering claim 10, Richardson discloses both the accelerator and the leveler are present in the composition [0014].
Considering claim 17, in Richardson as modified by Banik, Banik discloses the nanotwinned copper deposit is in a (111) orientation [0008].
Considering claim 19, Richardson discloses the substrate comprises pads [0162].
Considering claim 20, in Richardson as modified by Banik, Banik discloses the substrate comprises one or more vias, wherein the vias are filled with the copper deposit having the high density of nanotwinned columnar copper grains ([0027] and [0029]).
Claim(s) 2-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienle et al. (US 20190309429 A1) in view of Banik et al. (WO 2020092244 A1).
Considering claim 16, Kienle discloses a method of electrodepositing copper on a substrate comprising: contacting a surface of a substrate and at least one anode with copper electrolyte solution comprising: a copper salt [0117], a source of halide ions [0127], a suppressor comprising a linear or branch polyhydroxyl [0076], an accelerator comprising an organic sulfur compound [0132] and a leveler comprising a quaternary nitrogen compound [0147].
Kienle does not disclose depositing a high density of nanotwinned columnar copper grains.
However, Banik discloses a copper structure having a high density of nanotwinned copper deposited on a substrate. Banik does not describe any particular electrolytic copper plating bath but instead describes electroplating conditions, including applying a pulsed current waveform that alternates between constant current and no current, where the duration of no current being applied is substantially greater than a duration of a constant current being applied [0008]. Furthermore, Banik teaches that nanotwinned copper (nt-Cu) exhibits excellent mechanical and electrical properties and may be used in a wide variety of applications in wafer level packaging and advanced packaging designs [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of forming high density nanotwinned copper in the method of Kienle, because Banik discloses a copper structure having a high density of nanotwinned copper deposited on a substrate by applying a pulsed current waveform that alternates between constant current and no current because nanotwinned copper (nt-Cu) exhibits excellent mechanical and electrical properties and may be used in a wide variety of applications in wafer level packaging and advanced packaging designs.
Considering claim 2, Kienle discloses the copper salt is copper sulfate [0117].
Considering claim 3, Kienle discloses sulfuric acid or methane sulfonic acid [0126].
Considering claim 4, Kienle discloses linear or branched polyhydroxyl comprises poly(2,3-epoxy-1-propanol) [0076], for X3 = C1 [0030].
Considering claims 5 and 6, Kienle discloses the linear or branched polyhydroxyl comprises a reaction product between 2,3-epoxy-1- propanol and an amine compound [0075].
Considering claim 7, Kienle discloses the amine compound is triethanolamine [0108].
Considering claims 8 and 9, Kienle discloses the accelerator is for example 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid [0141] or 3-(2-benzthiazolylthio)-1-propanesulfonic acid [0142], corresponding to the claimed 3-(benzothizolyl-2-mercapto)-propylsulfonic acid.
Considering claim 10, Kienle discloses both the accelerator and the leveler are present in the composition [0123].
Considering claims 11 and 12, Kienle discloses the copper electroplating solution comprises: copper typically present in an amount in the range of from about 1 to about 300 g/l [0120], with overlaps the claimed range of from about 40 to about 60 g/L copper ions; acids are typically present in an amount in the range of from about 1 to about 300 g/ [0126], which overlaps the claimed range of from about 80 to about 140 g/L sulfuric acid; halide ion concentrations may be used from about 0 to about 500 ppm (500 mg/L) [0127], which overlaps the claimed range of form about 30 to about 120 mg/L chloride ions; suppressors are typically used in an amount of about 1 ppm to about 10,000 ppm (1-10,000 mg/L) [0145], which overlaps the claimed range of from about 300 to about 600 mg/L linear or branched polyhydroxyl; wherein the polyhydroxyl comprises a poly(2,3-epoxy)-1-propanol directly bonded to a nitrogen-containing species [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 13 and 14, Kienle discloses the copper electroplating solution further comprises:
leveling agent typically from 1 to 100 ppm (1-100 mg/L) [0149], which overlaps the claimed range of from about 0.5 to about 10 mg/L of the leveler, the leveler comprising a polymer quaternary nitrogen species [0147]; and preferable amount of accelerators is 2-100 ppm (2-100 mg/L) [0143], which overlaps the claimed range of from about 1 to about 50 mg/L of the accelerator.
Considering claim 15, Kienle teaches that besides the metal ions and at least one of the suppressing agents and acid the electroplating compositions includes optionally halide ions, and optionally other additives like accelerators and/or levelers [0123]. Therefore, Kienle meets the claimed copper electroplating solution is at least substantially free of any accelerator, brightener, carrier, wetter, or leveler or any compound that can function as an accelerator, brightener, carrier, wetter, or leveler, because Kienle teaches these components merely as optional.
Considering claim 17, in Kienle as modified by Banik, Banik discloses the nanotwinned copper deposit is in a (111) orientation [0008].
Considering claim 19, Kienle discloses the substrate comprises vias, pads or traces [0171].
Considering claim 20, in Kienle as modified by Banik, Banik discloses the substrate comprises one or more vias, wherein the vias are filled with the copper deposit having the high density of nanotwinned columnar copper grains ([0027] and [0029]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienle et al. and Banik et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 20200135680 A1).
Considering claim 18, in Kienle as modified by Banik, Banik discloses high density nanotwinned copper deposited as shown in Fig. 1.
Bing is silent about the greater than 90% nanotwinned columnar copper grains.
However, Chang discloses twinned copper volume percentage in the entire conductive layer ranges from about 95 vol % to about 99.9 vol % [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the high density nanotwinned copper deposit of Banki in the method of Kienle as modified by Banik, because Bank only discloses qualitatively showing high density nanotwinned copper, and Chang discloses twinned copper volume percentage in the entire conductive layer ranges from about 95 vol % to about 99.9 vol % for the same purpose of for example filling vias. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the high density nanotwinned copper of Banik has greater than 90% nanotwinned columnar copper grains in order to have the benefits of greater Young's modulus and a tensile strength thus preventing the conductive lines from cracking [0059].
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienle et al. and Banik et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Jayaraju et al. (US 20170238427 A1).
Considering claims 21 and 22, Kienle teaches suitable current density is 1 to 250 mA/cm2 (0.1 to 25 ASD), which may be direct current (DC), a pulse current (PC), a pulse reverse current (PRC) or other suitable current [0168]. Banik discloses that nanotwinned copper structure may be deposited on the substrate by applying the current between 1 and 12 ASD [0050].
Kienle and Banik do not disclose the first current density is in the range of about 4 to about 12 ASD and the second lower current density is in the range of about 0.5 to about 2.0 ASD.
However, Jayaraju discloses first current density of 1 to 5 ASD and second of 0.5 to 2 ASD [0021]. The methods reduce or inhibit dimple formation and voids during through-hole filling thus providing a substantially uniform copper layer on the surface of the substrate and good through-hole filling [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second lower current density in the method of Kienle as modified by Banik, because Jayaraju teaches using first current density of 1 to 5 ASD and second of 0.5 to 2 ASD in order to reduce or inhibit dimple formation and voids during through-hole filling thus providing a substantially uniform copper layer on the surface of the substrate and good through-hole filling.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11873568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant claims are met by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11384446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant claims are met by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21, 16-21 and 23 of copending Application No. 19108485 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant claims are met by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-22 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-28 of copending Application No. 18/534819 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant claims are met by the claims of the U.S. Patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights