DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending before the Office for review.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 16, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on July 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MICHALIK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0003061) in view of GRIESER et al (U.S. Patent 6,562,149).
With regards to claim 1, Michalik discloses a method for nano etching of copper or copper alloy surfaces characterized by the following method steps: i) providing a substrate having at least one copper or copper alloy surface (Paragraph [0081]),ii) contacting at least a portion of said copper or copper alloy surface with a predip composition, (Paragraphs [0097]-[0098]) iii) contacting at least a portion of said copper or copper alloy surface with an etching solution (Paragraph [0082),characterized in that - the steps are performed sequentially (Paragraph [0079]);- step ii) is a non-etching step (Paragraph [0084]);- step iii) is an etching step (Paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Michalik does not explicitly disclose wherein the predip composition comprises at least one sulfur containing compound selected from the group consisting of a) compounds of formula (I); b) compounds of formula (II); c) compounds of structure Y-H or Y2 (thiols or disulfides) and d) 3-nitrobenzene sulfonic acid.
Grieser discloses a process and composition for preliminary treatment of a copper surface for items such as a printed circuit board wherein the surface may be treated with composition comprising an adhesion promoting compound comprising at least one sulfur containing compound selected from the group consisting of a formamidine sulfinic acid, and thiazole including aminothiazole and substituted aminothiazole (Col. 2 lines 30-67, Col. 3 lines 20-45, Col. 4 lines 17-22) rendering obvious a predip composition comprises at least one sulfur containing compound selected from the group consisting of a) compounds of formula (I); b) compounds of formula (II); c) compounds of structure Y-H or Y2 (thiols or disulfides) and d) 3-nitrobenzene sulfonic acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Michalik to include the predip composition as rendered obvious by Grieser because the reference of Grieser teaches that such treatment alloys for better bonding in subsequent manufacturing steps (Col 2 lines 30-40) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the pre-treatment step as rendered obvious by Grieser. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Michalik renders obvious wherein the at least one sulfur containing compound is selected from the group consisting of 2-aminothiazole [X = S, R1, R2= H, R3+R5: -CH=CH-] (Grieser Col. 4 lines 17-21); formamidine sulfonic acid [X = S(O), R1, R2, R3 = H, R5 = OH], derivates, salts and mixtures thereof (Grieser Col. 3 lines 22-45).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Michalik render obvious wherein in step iii) the etching solution is an aqueous solution comprising of a) at least one acid; (Michalik Paragraph [0044]) b) at least one oxidizing agent suitable to oxidize copper; preferably, the at least one oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of peroxides and superoxides; (Michalik Paragraph [0039], [0043]) c) optionally, at least one source of halide ions; (Michalik Paragraph [0045]) d) at least one solvent, preferably water; (Michalik Paragraph [0049]) e) optionally, at least one azole corrosion inhibitor; (Michalik Paragraph [0046]) f) optionally, at least one polyalkylene compounds; (Michalik Paragraph [0047]) and g) if the at least one oxidizing agent comprises Fe(III) optionally, at least one source of ferrous ions. (Michalik Paragraph [0039]-[0043], [0048]) (See Michalik Paragraphs [0052]-[0060]).
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Michalik render obvious iv) containing the copper or copper alloy surface with a post-dip solution (Michalik Paragraph [0101]).
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Michalik render obvious wherein the substrate comprises a copper or copper alloy surface is selected from copper foils, copper alloy foils, printed circuit boards, IC substrates, interposers ,copperised semiconductor wafers and copper clad laminates. (Michalik Claim 16)
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Michalik render obvious wherein the nano etching is applied for producing cavities in the copper or copper alloy surfaces , wherein a plurality of the cavities is obtuse with respect to the top surface (Michalik Paragraphs [0119]-[0120], [0145]-[01522] discloses preventing undercutting in etching wherein the cavities have a negative value undercut and top bottom difference), and a plurality of the cavities are amounts such as 0.2 µm, 0.3 µm and 0.5µm (See Paragraphs [0129], [0144], [0167]-[01680) which renders obvious at least 50 nm and less than 500 nm deep. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Michalik render obvious treating an article with a copper or copper alloy surface wherein the article is a patterned sample. (Michalik Paragraphs [0084]).
With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Michalik discloses wherein the line width reduction was obtained from measuring the size of the copper lines before and after treatment wherein the smaller said value is the better (Paragraph [0122]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the change in dimension of the pattern to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of smaller than 10% in order to obtain the smaller value which allows for improved retention of the geometrical structure of the lines and avoidance of undercuts as taught by the modified teachings of Michalik (Michalik Paragraph [0013], [0122], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Michalik discloses wherein the line width reduction was obtained from measuring the size of the copper lines before and after treatment wherein the smaller said value is the better (Paragraph [0122]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the change in dimension is line width reduction to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of the line width reduction is smaller than 10% in order to obtain the smaller value which allows for improved retention of the geometrical structure of the lines and avoidance of undercuts as taught by the modified teachings of Michalik (Michalik Paragraph [0013], [0122], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights