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 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW113149086, filed on 12/17/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be “and” added before the last concentration. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the additives" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are also indefinite as dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is not clear if the all the listed additives listed in the claim are required or these are merely alternatives, because claim 1 requires alternatives not all of the additives at once and there is no example in speciation using all the listed additives together. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be interpreted in spirit of claim 1 and the specification, using an additive alternative.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (US 20240413347 A1).
Considering claim 1, Song discloses a manufacturing method of an electrolytic copper foil [0007], comprising: providing an electrolytic device comprising a cathode and an anode; soaking the cathode in an electrolyte (inherent in electroplating); adding an additive into the electrolyte; and performing electroplating to form an electrolytic copper foil on a surface of the cathode, wherein the additives comprise ethylene thiourea [0052].
Considering claims 2 and 3, Song discloses ethylene thiourea (ETU) in the amount of 1.8 ppm (Ex 1, Table 1, [0058]).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon et al. (US 20240097139 A1).
Considering claim 1, Moon discloses a manufacturing method of an electrolytic copper foil [0110], comprising: providing an electrolytic device comprising a cathode and an anode; soaking the cathode in an electrolyte [0110]; adding an additive into the electrolyte; and performing electroplating to form an electrolytic copper foil on a surface of the cathode, wherein the additives comprise hydroxyethyl cellulose [0111].
Considering claims 2 and 3, Moon discloses hydroxyethyl cellulose in the amount of 10 ppm [0111].
Considering claim 4, Moon discloses the electrolyte is a copper sulfate plating solution, in the copper sulfate plating solution, the concentration of 70 g/L [0111], which is within the claimed range of 60g/L to 80 g/L, and the concentration of sulfuric acid is 100 g/L [0111], which is within the claimed range of 60g/L to 110g/L.
Considering claim 7, Moon discloses the plating solution temperature is at 60° C [0111], which is within the claimed range of from 50°C to 70°C, and the current density is 60 ASD ([0112], [0114], Table 1), which is within the claimed range of from 40 ASD to 60 ASD.
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) 4, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20240413347 A1).
Considering claim 4, Song discloses the electrolyte is a copper sulfate plating solution, in the copper sulfate plating solution, the concentration of 200-452 g/L of CuSO4 5H2O (corresponds to 50-112 g/L of copper ions), [0052] which overlaps the claimed range of 60g/L to 80 g/L, and the concentration of sulfuric acid is 30-250 g/L [0052], which overlaps the claimed range of 60g/L to 110g/L.
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 claim 5, Song discloses 10-30 ppm chlorine ions [0052], which is within the claimed range of 5 ppm to 30 ppm.
Considering claim 7, Song discloses the plating solution temperature is at 50-60° C [0052], which is within the claimed range of from 50°C to 70°C, and the current density is 50-70 ASD [0052], which overlaps the claimed range of from 40 ASD to 60 ASD.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20240413347 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chiu (US 20220102730 A1).
Considering claim 6, Song is silent about the construction of the anode and cathode.
However, Chiu discloses forming a copper foil using titanium drum as a cathode titanium coated iridium oxide (IrO2/Ti) is adopted as anode and the titanium drum speed being 800 rpm [0022].
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 anode and cathode in the forming of copper foil in the method of Song, because Song is silent about the apparatus used for electroplating the copper foil, and Chiu discloses using titanium drum as a cathode titanium coated iridium oxide (IrO2/Ti) is adopted as anode and the titanium drum speed being 800 rpm in order to form copper foil.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20240097139 A1).
Considering claim 5, Moon discloses 1-100 ppm halogens such as chlorine [0090], which overlaps the claimed range of 5 ppm to 30 ppm.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20240097139 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chiu (US 20220102730 A1).
Considering claim 6, Moon discloses titanium coated with iridium oxide [0080] and a rotating cathode drum [0079], wherein the drum speed is adjusted according to desired copper film thickness [0112].
Mood does not disclose the drum is titanium when rotating at 500 to 1000 rpm.
However, Chiu discloses forming a copper foil using titanium drum as a cathode titanium coated iridium oxide (IrO2/Ti) is adopted as anode and the titanium drum speed being 800 rpm [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use titanium drum rotating at 800 rpm to form copper foil in the method of Moon, because Moon teaches adjusting speed to the desired thickness, and Chiu discloses substantially similar electroplating anode and the cathode comprising titanium drum revolving at 800 rpm in order to form copper foil. Moon teaches that the drum cathode is not limited to the exemplary chromium coated steel. Therefore, one would have an option of using a titanium drum as the cathode revolving at 800 rpm, or optimize the rotation speed for desired copper film thickness with reasonable expectation of success.
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