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 status
Claims 1-23 and 26-28 are pending with claims 18-23 and 26-28 being examined, claims 1-17 are deemed withdrawn. Claims 24-25 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
As to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 01/21/2026, the previous drawing objection is withdrawn. Applicant identified the optical detector and conductivity meter.
The claim rejections have been modified in accord with the amendment.
As to the remarks, the examiner has found the applicant’s arguments not persuasive and will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 18-23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid (US 6458262 B1; hereinafter “Reid” previous of record).
Regarding claim 18, Reid teaches an apparatus for determining concentrations of halide ions in a processing solution comprising a plurality of halide ions and one or more plating metals (Reid; Col. 2, lines 45-56 “apparatus for analysis and monitoring of electrolyte bath composition” and Col. 3. 15-22 “electroplating using copper sulfate and sulfuric acid” and “inorganic additives may be added such as chloride”), comprising:
a reservoir adapted to contain a test solution comprising the processing solution (Reid; Col. 3. Lines 61-84 “central plating chemistry vessel”);
a sampling mechanism coupled to the reservoir and adapted to provide a predetermined volume of the test solution from the reservoir to one or more sensors coupled to the sampling mechanism (Reid; Col. 6. Lines 46-50 “electrolyte is pumped through the on-line analysis system”);
wherein each of the one or more sensors are adapted to receive at least a portion of the predetermined volume of the test solution, and are operative to perform one or more analytical methods (Reid; Col 7. Lines 21-29 “a conductivity analysis system”);
wherein the one or more sensors comprises a conductivity sensor coupled to a conductivity meter and an absorbance sensor coupled to an optical detector, thereby determining concentrations of the halide ions.
Reid further teaches determining conductivity and light absorption of the sample (Reid; Col. 7. Lines 25-29). Thus, it is implicit that Reid would use a conductivity sensor coupled to a conductivity meter, and an absorbance sensor coupled to an optical detector in order to measure conductivity and light absorption of the sample.
Regarding claim 19, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), wherein the test solution comprises one or more samples of the processing solution (Reid; Col. 3. Lines 61-64 “device for sampling electrolyte from the electroplating process”).
Regarding claim 20, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), wherein the test solution further comprises one or more standard solutions (Reid; Col. 10. Lines 2-12 “metal acid and chloride”).
Regarding claim 21, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), wherein the sampling mechanism comprises a syringe, a volumetric flask, a graduated cylinder, an automatic syringe, or a metering pump (Reid; Col. 6. Lines 11-35 and fig. 1, 111 “pump”).
Regarding claim 22, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), wherein the one or more analytical methods comprise one or more of measuring a conductivity of the test solution, a concentration of the one or more plating metals, or an absorbance of the test solution (Reid; Col. 7. Lines 21-29 and fig. 1. “spectrophotometer”).
Regarding claim 23, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), further comprising a light source coupled to the absorbance sensor (Reid; Col. 7. Lines 44-47 “spectrophotometer is a dual beam fiber optic spectrophotometer . In such apparatus two identical light beams are created”).
Spectrophotometers are known in the art to measure absorbance (absorbance sensor). Furthermore, Reid teaches the spectrophotometer is preferably a dual beam fiber optic spectrophotometer which creates two identical light beams (light source) (Reid; Col. 7. Lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 26, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), wherein the processing solution comprises a predetermined concentration of the one or more plating metals (Reid; Col. 2. Lines 60-62), and the one or more sensors comprises the conductivity meter.
Reid teaches measuring conductivity (Reid; Col. 7. Lines 20-21).
Reid does not explicitly teach the one or more sensors comprises a conductivity meter.
It would have been obvious to include a conductivity meter to measure conductivity of the processing solution.
Claim 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid (US 6458262 B1; hereinafter “Reid” previous of record) in view of Tomaszewski (US4439285; hereinafter “Tomaszewski” previous of record).
Regarding claim 27, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 18 (see above) to include one or more plating metals (see above).
Reid fails to teach the one or more plating metals comprises iron triad metals and their alloys.
However, Tomaszewski teaches the analogous art of an electroplating apparatus (bath) for electroplating operation (Tomaszewski; Col. 7 lines 18-31) that includes plating metals (Tomaszewski; Abstract) that includes iron triad metals (Tomaszewski; Col. 2. Lines 48-56 ”the bath may include dissolved metals including iron, cobalt and nickel).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Reid’s one or more plating metals to include iron triad metals and their alloys as taught by Tomaszewski because Tomaszewski teaches electroplating metals that include iron triad metals (Tomaszewski; Col. 2. Lines 48-56 ”the bath may include dissolved metals including iron, cobalt and nickel).
The modification allows to enhance the mechanical and magnetic properties of the plating metals.
Regarding claim 28, Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 27 (see above) to include one or more plating metals (see above).
Reid fails to teach the one or more plating metals comprises nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), or iron (Fe).
However, Tomaszewski taches the analogous art of an electroplating apparatus (bath) for electroplating operation (Tomaszewski; Col. 7 lines 18-31) that includes nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), or iron (Fe) (Tomaszewski; Col. 2. Lines 48-56 ”the bath may include dissolved metals including iron, cobalt and nickel).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Reid’s one or more plating metals to include nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), or iron (Fe) as taught by Tomaszewski because Tomaszewski teaches electroplating metals that nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), or iron (Fe) (Tomaszewski; Col. 2. Lines 48-56 ”the bath may include dissolved metals including iron, cobalt and nickel).
The modification allows to enhance the mechanical and magnetic properties of the plating metals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/21/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections over Reid have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 18, over Reid. Applicant argues Reid does not teach a conductivity sensor coupled to a conductivity meter, and an absorbance sensor coupled to an optical detector.
Examiner disagrees. Reid teaches determining conductivity and light absorption of the sample (Reid, Col. 7. Lines 25-29). Thus, it is implicit that Reid teaches a conductivity meter and absorbance sensor to measure conductivity and light absorption of the sample.
Applicant also argues Reid does not teach determining the concentration of halide ions and instead Reid discloses determining the concentration of acid copper salt.
Examiner disagrees. Reid teaches chloride ion may be added to the sample in the form of hydrochloric acid wherein determination of a halide ion concentration is performed (Reid; Col. 3 lines 20-28).
Applicant further argues the apparatus for determining concentration of halide ions explicitly excludes the addition of reagents.
Examiner notes that the exclusion of additional reagents has not been claimed as claim 18 recites “an apparatus for determining concentrations of halide ion in a processing solution comprising a plurality of halide ions and one or more plating metals”. Examiner notes that hydrochloride is a halide.
Applicant also argues Reid does not disclose an apparatus for determining concentration of halide ions excluding a reagent.
Examiner disagrees. Reid teaches an apparatus for determining concentration of halide ions. Examiner notes that the exclusion of additional reagents has not been claimed.
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 ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights