DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) in the reply filed on 21 January 2026 is acknowledged. Group II (Claim 15) was withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 5 and 6 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.
5. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “a porosity in the range of 0.1 to 0.95,”” and the claim also recites “preferably 0.4 to 0.9” and “more preferably 0.6 to 0.85” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a hydraulic conductivity in the range of 10-4 to 10 m/s,” and the claim also recites “preferably 10-3 to 1 m/s” and “more preferably 10-3 to 10-1 m/s” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunisawa et al.
Kunisawa et al. (EP 1179617A1) is directed toward an apparatus and method for plating a substrate (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Kunisawa et al. discloses a distribution system for a process fluid for an electrolytic surface treatment (title) of a substrate (element W) comprising: a distribution body (element 98a) and a distribution medium (element 110). Kunisawa et al. further discloses that the distribution body comprises several openings for a process fluid and an electric current wherein the distribution medium covers at least some of the openings of the distribution body, and wherein the distribution medium comprises a netted framework with passages to distribute the process fluid and/or the electric current from the distribution body as depicted in FIG. 18, FIG. 19, and FIG. 29 (¶99, ¶100, ¶103, and ¶133).
Regarding Claim 2, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the netted framework forms a sponge with randomly distributed passages as supported by ¶103 (“sponge-like structure”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the netted framework forms a grid with evenly distributed passages (¶103).
Regarding Claim 4, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the distribution medium is porous as depicted in FIG. 18, FIG. 19, and FIG. 29 and discussed in ¶133.
Regarding Claim 5, Kunisawa et al. discloses distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the distribution medium has a porosity in the general range of 20% to 95% as per ¶133 and by example 30% porosity for alumina (¶164). It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses an example that falls within the claimed range (i.e.: 10% to 95% porosity). See MPEP 2131.03.I - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
The limitations “preferably 40% to 90%” and “more preferably 60% to 85%” in Claim 5 are being treated as optional since the claim contains a broader range and two narrower ranges.
Regarding Claim 7, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 5, wherein the porosity is anisotropic as explained in ¶224 and depicted in FIG. 61A and FIG. 61B.
Regarding Claim 8, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the netted framework comprises a single layer of cells and passages as depicted in FIG. 18 (element 110) and discussed in ¶99, ¶102, and ¶103.
Regarding Claim 11, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the passages are interconnected as depicted in FIG. 18, FIG. 21, and FIG. 22 where the plating liquid from inlet 102 flows through the porous layer 110 (thus forming an interconnect) (see ¶99, ¶100, and ¶108).
Regarding Claim 12, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according Claim 1, wherein the openings covered by the distribution medium are jet holes configured to direct the process fluid towards the substrate as depicted in FIG. 18 (see elements 98a, 98b, and 110) and explained in ¶99-100.
Regarding Claim 13, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the openings covered by the distribution medium are drain holes configured to drain off the process fluid relative to the substrate as depicted in FIG. 18 (see elements 98a, 98b, and 110) and explained in ¶99-100.
Regarding Claim 14, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the distribution medium covers the distribution body at least partially as depicted in FIG. 18 (see elements 98a, 98b, and 110) and explained in ¶99-100.
8. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai et al.
Nagai et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0139482 A1) is directed towards a plating method and a plating apparatus (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagai et al. discloses a distribution system for a process fluid for an electrolytic surface treatment (title and abstract) of a substrate (element W) comprising: a distribution body (element 526) and a distribution medium (element 532, 534a, and 534b). Nagai et al. further discloses that the distribution body comprises several openings for a process fluid and an electric current wherein the distribution medium covers at least some of the openings of the distribution body, and wherein the distribution medium comprises a netted framework with passages to distribute the process fluid and/or the electric current from the distribution body as depicted in FIG. 3 (¶14, ¶116-122, and ¶127).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagai et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the netted framework comprises at least two layers of cells and passages (“multilayered porous structure”) as indicated in ¶116-122 and ¶127.
Regarding Claim 10, Nagai et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, wherein the passages of the adjacent cells and the passages are partially displaced relative to each other as indicated in ¶116-122 and ¶127.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa et al.
Kunisawa et al. (EP 1179617A1) is directed toward an apparatus and method for plating a substrate (title).
Regarding Claim 6, Kunisawa et al. discloses the distribution system according to Claim 1, but does not expressly discuss the hydraulic conductivity of the distribution medium.
As per ¶24-¶26 of the instant application (cited as US Pub. No. 2023/0250547 A1), the term “hydraulic conductivity” can be understood as a property that describes the ease with which a fluid can move through voids or pores. It may depend on an intrinsic permeability of a material, a degree of saturation, and on a density and viscosity of the fluid. In ¶29 of the instant application, the applicant indicates that controlling the hydraulic conductivity is important since it allows for a broader distribution and a more uniform surface treatment of the substrate.
Kunisawa et al. explicitly describes in ¶133 the different options for ceramic materials (i.e.: the porous material or distribution medium) which are selected from alumina, SiC, mullite, zirconia, titania, or cordierite. In the alumina example, Kunisawa et al. indicates that different properties such as pore diameter, porosity, and thickness can all be modulated. The aforementioned properties of ceramic materials would impact the hydraulic conductivity.
Therefore, the hydraulic conductivity is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation by choice of ceramic and tailoring of its permeability properties (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the hydraulic conductivity, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have formed an electrodeposited metallic coating on the substrate that has both uniform coverage and thickness.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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.
13. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794