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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed January 27, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; claims 11-15 have been withdrawn previously, and claim 2 has been cancelled previously. Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 2, 2025.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemoto et al. (US20160077035A1), in view of Rulkens et al. (US20090157229A1), Grieshaber et al. (Electrochemical biosensors-sensor principles and architectures, Sensors, 2008, 8, 1400-1458), Chalyt et al. (US20030062266A1), Choe et al. (High accuracy concentration analysis of accelerator components in acidic Cu superfilling bath, Journal of the electrochemical society, 2016, 163, D33-D39), and Wang et al. (Microsensor Chip Integrated with Gold Nanoparticles-Modified Ultramicroelectrode Array for Improved Electroanalytical Measurement of Copper Ions, Electroanalysis, 2013, 25, 1713-1721).
Regarding claim 1, Kanemoto teaches an electrochemical measuring cell (a flow cell 90 in Figs. 13A and 13B [paras. 0060-0061, 0184] used for an electrochemical analysis apparatus in Fig.10 wherein the flow cell 20 is replaced by the flow cell 90); the limitation “for determining a concentration of an additive breakdown product in a plating solution supplied from a plating bath during a plating process” is an intended use limitation [see MPEP 2111.02]. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell comprising a working electrode, a counter electrode, and a reference electrode disposed in a solution to be measured flowing through a flow cell [paras. 0184-0190]. Since the disclosed electrochemical measuring cell comprising substantially the same elements or components as that of the instant application, as evidenced by the rejection in the following, it is contended that the electrochemical measuring cell of the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The electrochemical measuring cell comprising:
a flow cell (flow cell 90 formed by laminating two electrically insulative substrates 100 and 102 and a seal member 101 in a manner shown in FIG.13B [para. 0184]) including:
a supply port (pipe 107 in Fig.13B [para. 0187]);
a discharge port (pipe 108 in Fig.13B [para. 0187]);
a flow channel (opening 106 in Fig.13B formed by the substrates 100 and 102, and the seal member 101 [para. 0186]);
a working electrode (working electrode 104 in Fig. 13B [para. 0187]) disposed on the flow channel (see Fig.13B), wherein the working electrode comprises an electrode (the working electrode is obtained by forming a lead wire in a composite material having platinum or a platinum alloy as a base material [abstract, para. 0028]); and the limitations “configured to contact with the plating solution accommodated in the flow cell” and “configured to measure an anodic current from the plating solution flowing through the flow channel” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Fig.13B shows the working electrode 104 is in contact with the solution under measurement in the flow cell. Thus, the disclosed working electrode is configured to contact with the plating solution accommodated in the flow cell and configured to measure an anodic current from the plating solution flowing through the flow channel;
a reference electrode (a reference electrode [para. 0190]), wherein the reference electrode comprises an electrode (A reference electrode used in an electrolysis cell may be a silver/silver-chloride electrode, a saturated calomel electrode, a silver electrode, or the like [para. 0123]); the limitations “configured to contact with the plating solution flowing through the flow cell” and “configured to provide a reference when applying an electrochemical potential to the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the disclosed reference electrode is configured to contact with the plating solution flowing through the flow cell (a reference electrode is disposed at a solution exhaust-side pipe section [para. 0190]) and is configured to provide a reference when applying an electrochemical potential to the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product (the reference electrode is used as a reference electrode when applying a potential to the working electrode [para. 0190]); and
a counter electrode (counter electrode 105 in Fig.13B [para. 0187]) disposed on the flow channel (see Fig.13B), and configured to contact with the plating solution flowing through the flow cell (the counter electrode 105 is disposed on top wall of the flow channel in contact with the solution flowing through the flow cell as shown in Fig.13B),
wherein the working electrode is an anode (the working electrode is an anode as evidenced by the cyclic voltammetry shown in Fig. 22 when the potential is in the range of 0 to 1.1 V [para. 0236]),
wherein a surface of the working electrode includes Pt or Pt alloy (Figs. 3-4 show the working electrode is covered with a composite material 301, which connects a stainless-steel shaft 304 by a lead wire 203 [para. 0153, 0156]; the composite material comprises platinum or platinum alloy [para. 0028, 0090]. Thus, a surface of the working electrode includes Pt or Pt alloy).
the limitations “configured to receive the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product from the plating bath”; “through which the plating solution is discharged”; and “to accommodate the plating solution passing through from the supply port to the discharge port” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Kanemoto teaches one of the pipes 107 and 108 is coupled to a mechanism for introducing a solution under measurement or the like into the flow cell 90, and the other is used as a flow path for exhausting the measurement-completed solution [paras. 0187, 0189]. Thus, the pipes 107 and 108, and the flow channel are capable of performing the claimed respective functions above. The limitations “plating” and “containing the additive breakdown product from the plating bath” in “the plating solution” and “the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product from the plating bath” further limit the sample but fail to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since “the plating solution” and “the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product from the plating bath” further limit the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fail to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of “the plating solution containing the additive breakdown product from the plating bath” and “the plating solution” have no patentable weight;
the limitations “wherein the concentration of the additive breakdown product in the plating solution is determined based on the anodic current measured at the working electrode during the plating process” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell comprising the flow cell, the working electrode, the reference electrode and the counter electrode, wherein the working electrode includes a precious metal film (platinum or a platinum alloy [claims 1, 8, para. 0028]), and the disclosed electrochemical measuring cell is essentially the same as the claimed one. Kanemoto further teaches wherein the electrochemical analysis apparatus can be used to measure electrochemical response of a chemical component contained in a liquid sample [paras. 0028, 0078] by known measurement schemes such as potentiometry, amperometry, voltammetry, and impedance measurement using the measuring means 6 and a potential applying means 5 which is a potentiostat, a galvanostat, a DC power supply, or an AC power supply [para. 0148]. Thus, the disclosed electrochemical measuring cell is capable of performing the claimed functions of measuring the anodic current at the working electrode to identify the concentration of the additive breakdown product in the plating solution during the plating process.
Kanemoto is silent to the following limitations: (1) the supply port connected to the plating bath; (2) the reference electrode is disposed on the flow cell; (3) the counter electrode is disposed at the discharge port on the flow channel; (4) wherein the working electrode and the reference electrode are facing each other, and (5) wherein the surface of the working electrode includes Au nanoparticles.
Rulkens teaches apparatus and method for plating solution analysis and control (title), and Fig.1 shows a solution sampling and control apparatus 100 including a solution manifold 110. A plurality of process solution tubes 120, each of which include a throttling valve 130 are coupled to the solution manifold 110. The process solution tubes 120 may each, in turn, be coupled to any of a plating bath having a plating solution, reagent chemical sources, and deionized (DI) water. The solution manifold 110 functions as means for introducing process chemicals into the plating bath and for drawing a sample of the plating solution from the plating bath for analysis [para. 0023]. A first sample tube 140A is used to convey a sample of the plating solution from the solution manifold 110 to a flow cell 150 [para. 0025]. The sample of the plating bath which is passed to the flow cell 150 and the pH probe 180 may be sent intermittently or continuously [para. 0029]. Thus, Rulkens teaches a supply port comprising a sample tube 140A, a solution manifold 110, process solution tubes 120, and valves 130 as shown in Fig.1 connected a plating bath and a flow cell, wherein the supply port is configured to receive the plating solution from the plating bath and introduce a sample of the plating solution from the plating bath to the flow cell for analysis.
Kanemoto and Rulkens are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatus for plating solution analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the supply port in Kanemoto with the supply port comprising process solution tubes, valves, solution manifold and sample tube, wherein either end of the supply port is connected, respectively, to the plating bath and the flow cell, as taught by Rulkens, since it would allow the flow cell to be coupled to any of a plating bath having a plating solution and draw a sample of the plating solution from the plating bath for analysis [para. 0023-0024 in Rulkens].
Kanemoto teaches wherein the reference electrode is disposed at a solution exhaust-side pipe section (discharge port) and used as a reference electrode when applying a potential to the working electrode [para. 0190]. Fig.13B shows the working electrode 104 and the counter electrode 105 are disposed on the flow cell, and facing each other.
Modified Kanemoto is silent to the following limitations: (2) the reference electrode is disposed on the flow cell; (3) the counter electrode is disposed at the discharge port on the flow channel; (4) wherein the working electrode and the reference electrode are facing each other, and (5) wherein the surface of the working electrode includes Au nanoparticles.
Grieshaber teaches an electrochemical flow cell comprising a supply port (inlet in Fig.16), a discharge port (outlet in Fig.16), a flow channel (flow cell in Fig.16), a working electrode (ITO working electrode in Fig.16), a reference electrode (Ag/AgCl reference electrode in Fig.16), and a counter electrode (Pt counter electrode in Fig.16), wherein (2) the reference electrode is disposed on the flow cell (see Fig.16); (3) the counter electrode is disposed at the discharge port on the flow channel (Pt counter electrode is disposed at the outlet); and (4) wherein the working electrode and the reference electrode are facing each other (ITO working electrode is disposed at the bottom wall of the flow channel, and Ag/AgCl reference electrode is disposed at the top wall of the flow channel, and the working electrode and the reference electrode are facing each other).
Modified Kanemoto and Grieshaber are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical flow cell apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the counter and refence electrodes in modified Kanemoto by switching the positions of the counter electrode and the reference electrode to have the reference electrode disposed on the flow cell to face the working electrode and have the counter electrode disposed at the discharge port on the flow channel, as taught by Grieshaber, since Grieshaber teaches the suitable alternative arrangement of the working, counter and reference electrodes in an electrochemical flow cell (see Fig.16 in Grieshaber). Furthermore, rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. [see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)].
Modified Kanemoto is silent to the following limitations: (5) wherein the surface of the working electrode includes Au nanoparticles.
Chalyt teaches electrochemical method for analysis of three organic additives in an acid copper plating bath (title and [para. 0035]). A variety of inert metals may be used as the working electrode material, including platinum, iridium, osmium, rhenium, gold, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, tungsten, and alloys thereof [para. 0035]. Thus, Chalyt teaches gold which is a suitable alternative to platinum or platinum alloy as the electrode material of the working electrode.
Given the teachings of Kanemoto regarding the surface of the working electrode includes platinum or platinum alloy (see Figs. 3-4 and [para. 0028, 0090]), and the teachings of Chalyt regarding gold is a suitable alternative to Pt or Pt alloy as the electrode material of the working electrode for electrochemical analysis of plating solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Pt and/or Pt alloy in the working electrode of modified Kanemoto with Au, as taught by Chalyt, since gold is a suitable alternative electrode material to platinum and/or platinum alloy as the electrode material of the working electrode for electrochemical analysis of plating solution [para. 0035 in Chalyt]. The simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., Au working electrode for another working electrode of Pt or Pt alloy) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., electrochemical measurement of the concentration of additive breakdown product in a plating solution) [MPEP § 2143(I) (B)]. Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07]. With the above substitution, the surface of the working electrode includes Au.
Modified Kanemoto is silent to the following limitations: (5) wherein the surface of the Au working electrode includes Au nanoparticles.
Wang teaches gold nanoparticles-modified ultramicroelectrode array (UMEA) as the working electrode for electroanalytical measurement of copper ions. The gold nanoparticles increased the active surface area of UMEA by not changing the geometries of UMEA, and the current response was increased further (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gold working electrode in modified Kanemoto to include gold nanoparticles, as taught by Wang, since it would increase the active surface area of the working electrode, and accordingly the current response and detection sensitivity (abstract in Wang).
In the above, the electrochemical measuring cell for measuring the anodic current at the working electrode to identify the concentration of the additive breakdown product in the plating solution during the plating process is interpreted as a functional limitation. If given full patentable weight, however, such limitations are further rejected in view of Choe as outlined below.
Choe teaches an electrochemical method to measure the concentrations of SPS and MPS in a Cu plating solution in an electrochemical cell comprising Pt working electrode, Pt counter electrode and Ag/AgCl reference electrode, wherein MPS is the breakdown product of SPS (abstract, Experimental). SPS corresponds to the additive. Reactions (2)-(3) details the breakdown of SPS to MPS. Fig.2 shows the CVS voltammogram as a function of Xs, which is a conversion ratio of SPS to MPS defined in equation (6), at the same CT (refers to the sum of intact and dissociated SPS). It was observed that the stripping current density in a potential range of 0.05V -0.35 V increases as Xs increases (the 1st and 2nd paragraphs in Col. 1 on page D35). Note that the stripping current in the potential range of 0.05V -0.35 V is an anodic current.
Modified Kanemoto and Choe are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical detection of a chemical component contained in a liquid sample solution by known electrochemical measurement schemes such as voltammetry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the electrochemical analyzer of modified Kanemoto to measure the anodic current at the working electrode (i.e., the stripping current in a positive potential range such as 0.05 V-0.35V as shown in Fig.2 in Choe) to identify the concentration of an additive breakdown product (i.e., MPS) in a Cu plating solution during a Cu plating process, as taught by Choe, since it would allow to determine SPS and MPS concentrations, which would provide a reliable and high accuracy tool to predict pattern filling capabilities of plating solutions (abstract in Choe).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the plating process is a copper plating process” further limits the plating process from which the plating solution is obtained. Thus, the claimed limitation further limits the plating solution which is the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell, but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the copper plating process further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the copper plating process have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein the plating process is a copper plating process (Cu electroplating [abstract; the 1st paragraph in Col. 1 on page D33]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein a reference plating solution includes copper sulfate, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid” further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell, but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed reference plating solution further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the reference plating solution have no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the additive breakdown product is monovalent copper ions or a complex thereof” is an intended result of the resulting additive breakdown product through the reactions of the additive during the plating process, thus further limits the chemical components in the sample solution, but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed additive breakdown product further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the additive breakdown product have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein the additive breakdown product is monovalent copper ions or a complex thereof (reaction [1]; Here Cu+ is further stabilized to form complex with residual MPS or Cl- [the 3rd paragraph in Col. 1 on page D33]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the additive breakdown product is 3-mercaptopropyl sulfonate (MPS)” is an intended result of the resulting additive breakdown product through the reactions of the additive during the plating process, thus further limits the chemical components in the sample solution, but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed additive breakdown product further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the additive breakdown product have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein the additive breakdown product is 3-mercaptopropyl sulfonate (MPS) (MPS, a breakdown product of SPS [abstract]; Reactions [2]-[3] on page D33 details the conversion of SPS to MPS).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the additive breakdown product is Cu+-MPS” is an intended result of the resulting additive breakdown product through the reactions of the additive during the plating process, thus further limits the chemical components in the sample solution, but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed resulting additive breakdown product further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the additive breakdown product have no patentable weight.
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein the additive breakdown product is Cu+-MPS (reactions [1-3]; Here Cu+ generated by reaction [1] is further stabilized to form complex with residual MPS [the 3rd paragraph in Col. 1 on page D33]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein an additive includes sodium sulfopropyl disulfide (SPS)” further limits the sample since additive is a component of the plating solution but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed additive further limits the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the limitations of the additive have no patentable weight;
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein an additive includes sodium sulfopropyl disulfide (SPS) (the organic additives are grouped as the accelerator, and one of the most widely used accelerators is SPS. Decomposition of SPS during electroplating is described in reactions [2]-[3]; the 1st paragraph in Col. 1 to the 3rd paragraph in Col. 2 on page D33).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the plating solution is directly supplied from the plating bath where plating is in progress” further limits the plating solution which is the solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell but fails to further limit the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claimed limitations further limit the plating solution under measurement by the electrochemical measuring cell (material worked upon) but fails to limit the electrochemical measuring cell (by a structure being claimed), the claimed limitations have no patentable weight;
In the alternative, Examiner also notes Choe does teach wherein the plating solution is directly supplied from a plating bath where plating is in progress (high accuracy concentration analysis of accelerator components in acidic Cu Superfilling Bath [title]; accurate measurement of SPS in damascene Cu plating baths [abstract]). Furthermore, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kanemoto as modified by Rulkens teaches the supply port connected to the plating bath to take a sample of the plating bath to determine the concentrations of the plating bath constituents [para. 0006, 0024 in Rulkens]. Thus, modified Kanemoto does teach wherein the plating solution is directly supplied from the plating bath where plating is in progress.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kanemoto teaches the electrochemical measuring cell of claim 1, and the limitation “wherein the supply port is selectively supplied with one or more plating solutions of a reference plating solution and a sample plating solution” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Kanemoto as modified by Rulkens teaches the supply port comprising process solution tubes, valves, solution manifold and sample tube (see Fig.1 in Rulkens), wherein the process solution tubes may each, in turn, be coupled to any of a plating bath having a plating solution, reagent chemical sources, and DI water [para. 0023 in Rulkens]. A first sample tube 140A is used to convey a sample of the plating solution from the solution manifold 110 to a flow cell 150 [para. 0025 in Rulkens]. Furthermore, modified Kanemoto as modified by Cheo teaches wherein the analyte solution under measurement is a plating solution (including a sample plating solution [target solution] in Experimental in Cheo and a reference plating solution [solutions #1-#6 in Table I of Cheo with known concentrations of CS and CM]) during a Cu plating process. Thus, the supply port is configured to be selectively supplied with one or more plating solutions of a reference plating solution and a sample plating solution by using the process solution tubes each in turn be coupled to one or more plating solutions of a reference plating solution and a sample plating solution in order to measure the concentrations of SPS and MPS in the selected plating solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 5-8, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and all 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues at pages 5-7 that neither Kanemoto nor Chalyt discloses or suggests that the surface of the working electrode includes Au nanoparticles, as specifically required by amended Claim 1. Moreover, Rulkens, Grieshaber and Choe fail to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Kanemoto and Chalyt, as Rulkens, Grieshaber and Choe are cited for disclosing some elements of the claims, but fail to disclose that the surface of the working electrode includes Au nanoparticles as claimed by amended Claim 1. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 1 is allowable over the cited references. It is also respectfully asserted that Claims 3-10 which depend from Claim 1 also are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency from the allowable base claim.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection for claim 1 above.
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 SHIZHI QIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V Van can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795