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 II, claims 2-14, in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 1 (product) and 15-20 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant’s specification discloses that “FIG. 2 is a diagram of forming a non-flat copper
layer by filling a hole or groove with electroplating copper in the prior art” (page 10, [0049]).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6
line 2, please delete the word “electroplating”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Claim 7
line 1, please delete the word “electroplating”.
This is an instance where the article should be changed to ensure proper antecedent basis for the claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
I. Claim(s) 2-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/149965 (‘965).
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘965 teaches a composition (= the deposition composition) [ρ [0014]] comprising:
• a metal ion source (= a source of copper ions) [ρ [0014]] and
• a leveling agent, wherein the leveling agent is a polypyridine compound (= dipyridyls that may be quaternized to prepare the levelers have the general structure (18):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Structure (18))
[ρ [0127]],
WO ‘965 does not explicitly teach wherein the polypyridine compound comprises a structural unit shown in Formula (I) or a protonated product of the structural unit shown in Formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
87
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula (I)
wherein in Formula (I),
R1 and R2 are independently any one of the following: substituted or unsubstituted alkylene, substituted or unsubstituted arylene, substituted or unsubstituted arylene alkyl,
substituted or unsubstituted alkylene aryl, alkylene containing an ether oxygen atom, ester, and/or imide, arylene containing an ether oxygen atom, ester, and/or imide, arylene alkyl containing an ether oxygen atom, ester, and/or imide, or alkylene aryl containing an ether oxygen atom, ester, and/or imide; and
R3 is any one of the following: a single bond, substituted or unsubstituted alkylene, substituted or unsubstituted arylene, substituted or unsubstituted arylene alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted alkylene aryl, and a linking group containing an ether oxygen atom, ester, and/or imide.
WO ‘965 teaches wherein the polypyridine compound comprises a structural unit shown in structure (38):
PNG
media_image3.png
176
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Structure (38)
(ρ [0102] and ρ [0115])
wherein in Structure (38),
B (= R1) is an alkylene having from one to six carbon atoms substituted with an ester (= alkylene containing an ester) [ρ [0103]],
(CH2)p and (CH2)q [= R2] where p and q may be the same or different, are integers between 0 and 6, wherein at least one of p and q is at least 1 (ρ [0102]), and
(CH2)m [= R3] where m is an integer from 0 to 6 (ρ [0088]).
Of these dipyridyl compounds, 4,4’-dipyridyl compounds are preferred since compounds based on 4,4’-dipyridyl have been found to be particularly advantageous levelers in terms of achieving low impurity inclusion and underplate and overplate reduction (ρ [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polypyridine compound taught by WO ‘965 with wherein the polypyridine compound comprises a structural unit shown in Formula (I) or a protonated product of the structural unit shown in Formula (I). The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because quaternizing the dipyridyl of Structure (18) with an alkylating agent of Structure (35) as applied above are suitable selections for the polypyridine compound as taught by WO ‘965 in [0088], [0102], [0103], [0115] and [0127] for providing a leveler compound which achieves a void-free and seam-free filling of vias, for example, for an effective bottom-up filling (see WO ‘965, [0155]) and because compounds based on 4,4’-dipyridyl have been found to be particularly advantageous levelers in terms of achieving low impurity inclusion and underplate and overplate reduction.
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the polypyridine compound comprises a
protonated product (=
PNG
media_image4.png
129
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) [ρ [0115]] and a halide ion of the structural unit shown in Formula (I), and the halide ion comprises any one of the following: a fluoride ion, a chloride ion, a bromide ion, and an iodide ion (= Y and Z are leaving groups. The leaving group may be selected from among, for example, chloride, bromide, iodide) [ρ [0102]].
Regarding claim 3, WO ‘965 teaches wherein in R1, R2, and R3, a quantity of carbon atoms in the substituted or unsubstituted alkylene ranges from 1 to 30, and a quantity of carbon atoms in the substituted or unsubstituted arylene ranges from 6 to 30 (= substituted or
unsubstituted alkylene having from one to six carbon atoms) [ρ [0102]].
Regarding claim 4, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the alkylene containing an ether oxygen atom is denoted as -(R4O)x-L-(R5O)y-R5-, wherein R4 and R5 are same or different alkylene, x is an integer greater than or equal to 0, y is an integer greater than or equal to 1, and L represents a single bond or at least one ether oxygen block (= an alkylene having from one to six carbon atoms substituted with an ether) [ρ [0103]].
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘965 teaches wherein in the electroplating composition, a concentration of the leveling agent ranges from 1 ppm to 100 ppm (= the leveler concentration may range from about 1 ppm to about 100 ppm) [ρ [0135]].
Regarding claim 7, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the electroplating composition further comprises one or more of the following: an accelerator (= ViaForm® Extreme Accelerator
available from Enthone Inc. ) [ρ [0150] and ρ [0004]], an inhibitor (= the composition may additionally comprise a compound comprising polyether chains) [ρ [0136]], or an inorganic additive (= chloride ion) [ρ [0051]].
Regarding claim 9, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the inhibitor comprises one or more of the following: polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, a block copolymer PEO-PPO-PEO, a block copolymer PPO-PEO-PPO, a random copolymer of EO and PO, or a propylene glycol block polyether (= the polyether chains generally comprising alkylene oxide repeat units, most typically ethylene oxide (EO) repeat units, propylene oxide (PO) repeat units, or combinations thereof. In those polymeric chains comprising both EO and PO repeat units, the repeat units may be arranged in random, alternating, or block configurations) [ρ [0136]]; and the concentration of the inhibitor in the composition ranges from 1 ppm to 2000 ppm (= the polyether polymer compound concentration may range from about 1 ppm to about 1000 ppm) [ρ [0138]].
Regarding claim 10, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the inorganic additive comprises chloride ions, and a concentration of the chloride ions in the composition ranges from 1 ppm to 100 ppm (= chloride ion may also be used in the bath at a level up to about 200 mg/L (about 200 ppm)) [ρ [0051]].
Regarding claim 11, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the composition further comprises at least one acid, and the at least one acid comprises sulfuric acid (= the acid comprises sulfuric acid) [ρ [0044]] and/or methyl sulfonate (= the acid comprises methanesulfonic acid) [ρ [0048]].
Regarding claim 12, WO ‘965 teaches wherein a concentration of the at least one acid in
the composition ranges from 1 g/L to 100 g/L (= the acid concentration in these systems is preferably less than about 100 g/L) [ρ [0044]].
Regarding claim 13, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the metal ion source comprises any one of the following: a copper ion source, a nickel ion source, a tin ion source, a cobalt ion source, a ruthenium ion source, or a silver ion source (= the copper source) [ρ [0044]].
Regarding claim 14, WO ‘965 teaches wherein the copper ion source comprises copper sulfate pentahydrate (= the copper source comprising copper sulfate may comprise copper sulfate or any of its hydrates, typically copper sulfate hydrate and/or copper sulfate
pentahydrate) [ρ [0044]] and/or copper methyl sulfonate (= in some embodiments, the copper source comprises copper methanesulfonate) [ρ [0048]]; and a concentration of the copper ion source in the composition ranges from 1 g/L to 100 g/L in terms of copper ions (= accordingly, the source of copper ion may be added to achieve copper ion concentrations greater than about 50 g/L) [ρ [0048]].
II. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011/149965 (‘965) as applied to claims 2-7 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0237579 A1).
Regarding claim 8, WO ‘965 teaches the method of at least claims 2-7 and 9-14 as applied above. WO ‘965 does not explicitly teach wherein the accelerator comprises one or more of the following: 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate, sodium polydithiodipropane sulfonate, or N,N-dimethyl-dithiocarboxamidopropanesulfonate sodium; and a concentration of the
accelerator in the composition ranges from 1 ppm to 50 ppm.
WO ‘965 teaches that copper damascene metallization relies on superfilling additives,
i.e., a combination of additives that are referred to in the art as accelerators, levelers, and suppressors. These additives act in conjunction in a manner that can flawlessly fill copper into the interconnect features (often called “superfilling” or “bottom up” growth) [ρ [0004]].
Duan, like WO ‘965, teaches electroplating copper (page 5, [0022]].
The plating compositions typically contain an accelerator. Any accelerators (also referred to as brightening agents) are suitable for use in the present invention. Such accelerators are well-known to those skilled in the art. Accelerators include, but are not limited to, N,N-dimethyl-dithiocarbamic acid-(3-sulfopropyl)ester; 3-mercapto-propylsulfonic acid-(3-sulfopropyl)ester; 3-mercapto-propylsulfonic acid sodium salt; carbonic acid-dithio-o-ethylester-s-ester with 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid potassium salt; bis-sulfopropyl disulfide; 3-(benzothiazolyl-s-thio)propyl sulfonic acid sodium salt; pyridinium propyl sulfobetaine; 1-sodium-3-mercaptopropane-1-sulfonate; N,N-dimethyl-dithiocarbamic acid-(3-sulfoethyl)ester; 3-mercapto-ethyl propylsulfonic acid-(3-sulfoethyl)ester; 3-mercapto-ethylsulfonic acid sodium salt; carbonic acid-dithio-o-ethylester-s-ester with 3-mercapto-1-ethane sulfonic acid potassium salt; bis-sulfoethyl disulfide; 3-(benzothiazolyl-s-thio)ethyl sulfonic acid sodium salt; pyridinium ethyl sulfobetaine; and 1-sodium-3-mercaptoethane-1-sulfonate. Accelerators may be used in a variety of amounts. In general, accelerators are used in an amount of 0.1 ppm to 1000 ppm (page 6, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accelerator taught by WO ‘965 with wherein the accelerator comprises one or more of the following: 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate, sodium polydithiodipropane sulfonate, or N,N-dimethyl-dithiocarboxamidopropanesulfonate sodium; and a concentration of the accelerator in the composition ranges from 1 ppm to 50 ppm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because adding 0.1 ppm to 1000 ppm of 3-mercapto-
propylsulfonic acid sodium salt, a brightening agent, to the plating solution would have enhanced the appearance of the plated metal.
MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795