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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun-Pin Chen (U.S. Patent Application: 2012/0122311, here after Chen).
Claim 1 is rejected. Chen teaches an electroless plating method, comprising:
providing an object to be plated, wherein the object to be plated is a metal
material (metal base, 12) [abstract, 0036-0037];
performing a cleaning process on the object to be plated to remove impurities on
a surface of the object to be plated, wherein the cleaning process is a wet chemical cleaning method (surfactant solution of clean water) [0038, 0039];
performing a plasma treatment process on the surface of the object to be plated and thereby [0038, 0044]; and
immersing the object to be plated after the plasma treatment process in a
chemical plating solution to form a plating layer [0039]. Although Chen does not
clearly teach ionizing the surface of the object to be plated. However, the plasma
treatment bombardment [0046] inherently breaks bonds of metal atoms on surface of
metal and ionize a metal of the surface and replacing surface sanitization and activation treatments.
Claim 3 is rejected as Chen teaches a process gas of the plasma treatment
process comprises an oxygen gas and/or an argon gas, so that the surface of the object to be plated is exposed to a plasma environment generated by the process gas [0044].
Claim 4 is rejected. As Chen teaches before the object to be plated is immersed
in the chemical plating solution, the surface of the object to be plated is not activated by
a catalyst (there is no catalyst deposited on surface of metal 12).
Claim 5 is rejected as Chen teaches a material of the object to be plated (12)
comprises gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or nickel [0033].
Claim 6 is rejected as Chen teaches the chemical plating solution comprises a
metal salt, and the metal salt comprises a nickel ion, a gold ion, or a copper ion [0033].
Claim 10 is rejected as Chen teaches the object to be plated is formed on a
substrate (chip, 10), and a material of the substrate comprises a semiconductor (which
is in fact a silicon wafer).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Pin Chen (U.S. Patent Application: 2012/0122311, here after Chen), further in view of Sergey Lopatin et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2005/0101130, here after Lopatin).
Claim 8 is rejected. Chen teaches a cleaning solution used in the wet chemical
cleaning method comprises inorganic acid [0044], but does not teach sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. Lopatin teaches cleaning substrate prior to electroless plating with wet method wherein the wet method comprising water and inorganic acids such as sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Chen where the cleaning solution comprising HCl and H2SO4, because it is suitable water solution for cleaning substrate prior to electroless plating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Chen does not teach wet cleaning process, the examiner disaggregate, Chen teaches wet cleaning [0038,0039] and also dry(plasma) cleaning [0044]. The applicant also argues Chen does not teach plasma treatment can replace surface sensitization and activation treatment used in conventional electroless plating. The examiner disagrees, plasma treatment inherently breaks bonds of metal atoms on surface of metal and ionize a metal of the surface, and since there is no catalyst used in placing therefore plasma treatment can replace surface sensitization and activation treatment used in conventional electroless plating.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718