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 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
14. This claim’s “performing an operation based at least in part on a comparison of” was not in the original disclosure and is thus new matter.
15-18. These claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian et al., CN 106048674 A in view of Pfeil et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,994,787 [hereinafter Pfeil]; Cao et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0368065 A1 [hereinafter Cao]; and Bokisa et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0173255 A1 [hereinafter Bokisa]. A machine translation was used for Jian et al. [hereinafter Jian].
The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes.
1. The following references render this claim obvious.
I. Jian
A method of refreshing a plating solution, the method comprising:
adding a metal sulfate to the plating solution {adding a ferric iron salt such as Fe2(SO4)3 (i.e. iron (III) sulfate) into the solution; Jian abstract, claim 1, [0009], [0017]};
precipitating out phosphate anions present in the plating solution with metal ions from the metal sulfate (phosphate precipitates; id.);
…
separating insoluble components from the plating solution (precipitates are filtered out; id.); and
…replenishing the plating solution with components originally present in the plating solution (add pH buffer such as nickel carbonate; which would replenish consumed nickel; Jian [0010]).
II. Barium Carbonate – Pfeil and Cao
Jian is silent on adding barium carbonate to the plating solution; precipitating sulfate introduced from the metal sulfate added to the plating solution with barium from the barium carbonate.
However, Pfeil teaches that sulfate may be precipitated by barium carbonate which forms barium sulfate and then filtered out. Pfeil col. 2 ll. 20-54.
Cao teaches that sulfate limits “bath performance and lifespan, which, in turn, increases material and processing costs.” Cao [0009], [0033], [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method by Pfeil’s precipitating sulfate by barium carbonate and then filtering it out in order to avoid limiting “bath performance and lifespan, which, in turn, increases material and processing costs” as taught by Cao.
III. After separating – Bokisa
Jian is silent on after separating the insoluble components from the plating solution.
However, Bokisa teaches filtering out undesirable precipitates out of the bath. Bokisa [0058]. And to this bath clear of precipitates Bokisa teaches replenishing the components of the bath to facilitate the electroplating process. Id. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would allow regenerating the bath to continue electroplating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method by after separating the insoluble components which makes a bath clear of precipitates, then replenish the components of the bath in order to regenerate the bath to continue electroplating to facilitate the electroplating process.
2-3. (Claim 2) The method of claim 1, wherein the metal sulfate is selected from aluminum sulfate, iron (II) sulfate, and iron (III) sulfate and (claim 3) the method of claim 2, wherein the metal sulfate is iron (III) sulfate (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein phosphite anions present in the plating solution are precipitated with metal ions from the metal sulfate (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the plating solution is an electroplating bath (electroplating bath). Jian title, abstract, claim 1, [0002].
20. The method of claim 1, wherein the plating solution comprises a plating metal, and wherein the plating metal includes cobalt, nickel, or a combination thereof (nickel). Jian abstract, claim 1, [0007].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, and Bokisa as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Matsuo et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,245,463 B1 [hereinafter Matsuo] and Martyak, U.S. Patent No. 6,099,624.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the components originally present in the plating solution include a source of cobalt or nickel (nickel carbonate; Jian [0010]) … .
I. Phosphorous Acid - Matsuo
Jian is silent on phosphorous acid.
However, Jian teaches the use of hypophosphite. Jian [0004].
Matsuo teaches that hypophosphite and phosphorous acid are both suitable for supplying phosphorous. Matsuo col. 4 ll. 46-65.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Matsuo’s phosphorous acid which would combine the equivalents of hypophosphite and phosphorous acid in order to yield the predictable result of supplying phosphorous.
II. Additives - Martyak
Jian is silent on additives.
However, Martyak teaches boric acid may buffer the solution. Martyak col. 4 ll. 42-67.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Martyak’s boric acid to buffer the solution.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, and Bokisa as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Myers et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,673,468 [hereinafter Myers], Matsuo, and alternatively Nippon Steel, NL 8002339 A [hereinafter Nippon].
5. The method of claim 1, wherein replenishing the plating solution with the components originally present in the plating solution comprises:
…
generating a precipitate;
separating the precipitate from the plating solution (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection) … .
I. Cobalt (II) Carbonate - Myers
Jian is silent on adding cobalt (II) carbonate to the plating solution to raise a pH of the plating solution.
However, Myers teaches that both Ni-P and Ni-Co-P coatings are both used for similar circumstances. Myers col. 1 ll. 7-48. Myers teaches that cobalt (II) carbonate makes for a source of cobalt. Myers col. 3 ll. 37-62.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method by adding Myers’s cobalt carbonate in addition to Jian’s nickel to yield the predictable result of forming Ni-Co-P, which is equivalent coating to Ni-P.
It is noted that Pfeil teaches that cobalt will also form a precipitate with sulfate which would also then be filtered out to take out the undesired sulfate. Pfeil col. 2 ll. 21-54, see claim 1 rejection.
II. Adding phosphorous acid – Matsuo and alternatively Nippon
Jian is silent on adding phosphorous acid to the plating solution, wherein adding phosphorous acid adjusts the pH of the plating solution.
However, it would have been obvious to have used Matsuo’s phosphorous acid for similar reasons articulated in the claim 4 rejection.
Nippon teaches that when the pH increases, then it is lowered by adding more acid. Nippon p. 4 last para. A person having ordinary skill would have also have recognized that this could be done when replenishing the solution as it would be a convenient and economical time to achieve the desired pH.
A person having ordinary skill would have also have recognized that Jian replenishes spent metal. Jian [0010]. Similarly, a person having ordinary skill would have recognized that phosphorous acid would have been spent and would have wanted to also replenish the spent phosphorous acid along with Jian’s metal replenishment as it would be a convenient and economical time to do so.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Matsuo’s phosphorous acid to lower the pH to desired levels as taught by Nippon and/or replenish the spent phosphorous acid and do so when replenishing the solution as it is a convenient and economical time to do so.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, and Bokisa as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Jones, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0153432 A1.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one of boric acid, boron carbide, silicon carbide, and aluminum oxide is added to the plating solution after the plating solution is separated from the precipitate. Jian is silent on this.
However, Jones teaches that silicon carbide particles produce good wear resistance. Jones [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Jones’s silicon carbide particles to produce good wear resistance.
A person having ordinary skill would have also have recognized that Jian replenishes spent metal. Jian [0010]. Similarly, a person having ordinary skill would have recognized that silicon carbide particles would have been spent and would have wanted to also replenish the spent silicon carbide particles along with Jian’s metal replenishment as it would be a convenient and economical time to do so.
Alternatively, Bokisa teaches replenishing a solution component (in this case copper ions) when the concentration is too low. Bokisa [0058]. A person having ordinary skill would have recognized that replenishment would have been an opportune time to replenish the silicon carbide particles since silicon carbide particles would have been lower and to achieve a fully replenished solution at a convenient and economical time to do so.
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method by replenishing the spent silicon carbide particles during replenishment in general to achieve a fully replenished solution at a convenient and economical time.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, and Bokisa as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Matsuo and alternatively Nippon.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein replenishing the plating solution with components originally present in the plating solution restores a pH of the plating solution (this claim is rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 5 rejection).
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the plating solution has an original pH when adding the metal sulfate to the plating solution, and wherein the method further comprises restoring a pH of the plating solution after the separating insoluble components from the plating solution to the original pH of the plating solution (this claim is rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 5 rejection).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, Bokisa, Matsuo, and alternatively Nippon as applied to claim 7 previously, and further in view of Kurrle, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0168259 A1.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the pH of the plating solution ranges from about 1.8 to about 2. Jian is silent on this.
However, Jian must use some plating pH.
Kurrle teaches that a pH of 1.8-2.2 is suitable for plating. Kurrle [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Kurrle’s pH of 1.8-2.2 to yield the predictable result of having a suitable pH to plate with.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, and Bokisa as applied to claim 1 previously, and further in view of Kurrle.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the metal sulfate is added to the plating solution after an accumulation of phosphate has been detected. Jian is silent on this.
However, Jian teaches that as phosphate ions increase, the cathode current efficiency and plating solution stability decrease. Jian [0004]. So a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been interested in monitoring the phosphate ion concentration to avoid the point where this decrease is unacceptable.
Bokisa teaches replenishing a solution component (in this case copper ions) when the concentration is too low. Bokisa [0058].
Kurrle teaches that the phosphate and phosphite concentrations may be measured. Kurrle [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method by replenishing the spent solution when the phosphate is measured to be too low to avoid an unacceptable decrease in the cathode current efficiency and plating solution stability.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, Bokisa, Jones, and Tomaszewski.
14-15. The following references render this claim obvious.
I. Claim 1 teachings
The following is rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection:
(claim 14) A method of assessing a refreshed plating solution, the method comprising:
(a) generating the refreshed plating solution from an aged plating solution, wherein the aged plating solution is derived from an original plating solution;
… .
(claim 15). The method of claim 14, wherein step (a) comprises:
adding a metal sulfate to the aged plating solution;
precipitating out phosphite anions and phosphate anions present in the aged plating solution with metal ions from the metal sulfate;
adding barium carbonate to the aged plating solution;
precipitating sulfate introduced from the metal sulfate added to the aged plating solution with barium from the barium carbonate;
separating insoluble components from the aged plating solution; and
replenishing the aged plating solution with components present in the original plating solution.
II. Abrasive Particles – Jones
Jian is silent on co-deposition of abrasive particles.
However, this is rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 6 rejection.
III. Parts b-c - Tomaszewski
Jian is silent on (b) electroplating a dummy cathode with the refreshed plating solution; and (c) performing an operation based at least in part on a comparison of properties of a coating produced in step (b) with the same properties of a coating produced by electroplating with the original plating solution, wherein the properties are indicative of co-deposition of abrasive particles, and wherein the operation comprises repeating step (a) to generate another refreshed plating solution from the refreshed plating solution, repeating step (b), or performing an electroplating operation on an object.
However, Tomaszewski teaches:
(b) electroplating a dummy cathode with the refreshed plating solution (test panels were plated; Luo col. 11 l. 8-43); and
(c) performing an operation based at least in part on a comparison of properties of a coating produced in step (b) with the same properties of a coating produced by electroplating with the original plating solution (color and coverage were compared to the untreated bath which showed no deposit; id.),
wherein the properties are indicative of co-deposition of abrasive particles (color and coverage would entail everything in the deposit; id.), and
wherein the operation comprises repeating step (a) to generate another refreshed plating solution from the refreshed plating solution, repeating step (b), or performing an electroplating operation on an object (multiple increments of reducing metal ions were tested; id.).
A person having ordinary skill would have recognized that Tomaszewski’s method would verify that the solution is truly rejuvenated. Tomaszewski col. 11 ll. 8-48.
Bokisa teaches replenishing the components of the electroplating bath and that a replenished bath facilitates the electroplating process, which a person having ordinary skill understands to mean that the electroplating process is continued. Bokisa [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s method with Tomaszewski’s method to verify the rejuvenation and then based on this comparison and verification then performing another operation in order to facilitate and continue the electroplating process.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the operation includes repeating step (b) (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 14 rejection).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jian in view of Pfeil, Cao, Bokisa, Jones, and Tomaszewski as applied to claims 14-15 previously, and further in view of Matsuo and Myers.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein replenishing the aged plating solution includes adding cobalt, phosphorus acid, and abrasive particles to the aged plating solution based at least in part on the original plating solution comprising cobalt, phosphorous acid, and abrasive particles. Jian is silent on this.
However, this claim is rejected for similar reasons articulated in the claims 1, 4-6, and 14-15 rejections.
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the abrasive particles include boron carbide, boron nitride, silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof. Jian is silent on this.
However, this claim is rejected for similar reasons articulated in the claim 6 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s latest filed arguments have been fully considered and are addressed below.
The Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument that Tomaszewski’s color and coverage doesn’t cover abrasive particles. Remarks pp. 13-14.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Tomaszewski’s “coverage” also covers any part of the coating since Tomaszewski did note that the aged bath produced no coating at all. Tomaszewski col. 11 ll. 8-42.
The rest of the arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571)270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM CT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (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.
/HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights