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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The applicant’s response dated 15 April 2026 has been entered into the record. Claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended without the addition of any new subject matter. Claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled. Currently Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich et al.
Kunisawa et al. (EP 1179617A1 – previously presented) is directed toward an apparatus and method for plating a substrate (title). Dietrich et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0186852 A1) is directed toward device and method for producing targeted flow and current density patterns in a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment (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).
With respect to the amendments to Claim 1, Kunisawa et al. is silent on the two following limitations”
wherein the distribution body comprises a front surface facing the substrate and a rear surface facing an anode
the openings are jet holes and some other openings are drain holes, wherein the distribution body is a high-speed plate (HSP),wherein the HSP is configured to direct the process fluid flow from inside the HSP via the jet holes towards the substrate, and-discharge a return flow of the process fluid back from the substrate through the HSP to an opposite side of the substrate via the drain holes that extend through the HSP, the drain holes are further configured to direct the electric current flow from the anode towards the substrate through the HSP.
Dietrich et al. is directed toward a method of producing targeted flow and current density patters (title) so it is analogous art to Kunisawa et al.
Dietrich et al. discloses an embodiment of a flow distributor depicted in Fig. 2 (reproduced below). The components of the distribution body are explained in detail in ¶35-¶45. The flow distributor has a front face 2 fand a rear face 3 that are positioned opposite of each other (FIG. 2). The front face 2 faces the substrate (i.e.: cathode) and the rear face 3 faces the anode (i.e.: counter electrode) as explained in ¶37-39 with a hollow space disposed between the faces. This structure is analogous to the first amendment to Claim 1 (i.e.: wherein the distribution body comprises a front surface facing the substrate and a rear surface facing an anode). Dietrich et al. further explains that the electric field is generated by the two electrodes 11 and 12 (attached to the substrate and counter electrode) as per ¶36 and FIG. 2 so the electric field extends through the flow distributor body 1. Placement of the distributor facilitates a particular strong incoming flow 13 and with electric field both facilitating a plating reaction at the substrate (cathode) as per ¶36. The previous mentioned construction is analogous to the “HSP” of amended Claim 1 as the flow speed is described as strong. As per ¶40-41 and depicted in FIG. 2 of Dietrich et al., the flow of electrolyte 6 through the distribution body initiates at inlet 5 into the chamber 7 with the electrolyte then flowing toward either the substrate or the anode via connecting passages 9. If the electrolyte flows toward the substrate, it exits the flow distributor 1 via outlet openings 8 in the incoming flow direction 13 (FIG. 2 and ¶41). If the electrolyte flows toward the anode, it exits the flow distributor 1 in the backflow direction 14 (FIG. 2 and ¶41). The electrolyte exiting the flow distributor can be recirculated via drain 18 (FIG. 2 and ¶42).
Further pertaining to the amendment to Claim 1 in regard to the HSP controlling the flow direction of current and electrolyte/process liquid, Dietrich et al. explains that the counter electrode body is advantageously attached in the rear region of the flow distributor body, in mechanical contact with, or spatially separated from, the flow distributor body such that the electric current flow is carried out between the counter electrode and the substrate acting as the electrode within the process solution through the connecting passages (¶23). Moreover, Dietrich et al. teaches that the arrangement of the anode and the cathode acting on different sides of the flow distributor body has the advantage of enabling a homogenous field line distribution of an electric field allowing the surface areas reacting with the process solution to be electrically and chemically treated homogenously (¶24). Finally, the flow distributor body may be positioned freely between the named electrodes such that the desired reaction on the parts of the substrate surface is substantially influenced by the incoming flow caused by the flow distributor body (¶24) of Dietrich. The discussion of current flow and control electrolyte flow in ¶23-24 as explained above maps onto the second part of the amendment to Claim 1 (i.e.: wherein the HSP is configured to direct the process fluid flow from inside the HSP via the jet holes towards the substrate, and-discharge a return flow of the process fluid back from the substrate through the HSP to an opposite side of the substrate via the drain holes that extend through the HSP, the drain holes are further configured to direct the electric current flow from the anode towards the substrate through the HSP).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Kunisawa et al. by including a separate distributor body discrete from the anode (counter electrode) and the substrate (cathode) using a high speed plate as taught by Dietrich et al. with the reasonable expectation of being able to precisely control the flow of the electrolyte and the flow of electrical current to yield higher quality metallic coatings on the substrate.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
Reproduction of FIG. 2 from Dietrich et al.)]
Regarding Claim 2, Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich 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. in view of Dietrich 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. in view of Dietrich et al. disclose 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. in view of Dietrich et al. disclose the 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 obviousness exists when the prior art discloses an example that falls within the claimed range (i.e.: 10% to 95% porosity). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
Regarding Claim 6, Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich 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 of Kunisawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich 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. in view of Dietrich 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 of Kunisawa et al. where the plating liquid from inlet 102 flows through the porous layer 110 (thus forming an interconnect) (see ¶99, ¶100, and ¶108 of Kunisawa et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich 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.
6. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. in view of Dietrich et al.
Nagai et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0139482 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a plating method and a plating apparatus (title). Dietrich et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0186852 A1) is directed toward device and method for producing targeted flow and current density patterns in a chemical and/or electrolytic surface treatment (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).
With respect to the amendments to Claim 1, Nagai et al. is silent on the two following limitations”
wherein the distribution body comprises a front surface facing the substrate and a rear surface facing an anode
the openings are jet holes and some other openings are drain holes, wherein the distribution body is a high-speed plate (HSP),wherein the HSP is configured to direct the process fluid flow from inside the HSP via the jet holes towards the substrate, and-discharge a return flow of the process fluid back from the substrate through the HSP to an opposite side of the substrate via the drain holes that extend through the HSP, the drain holes are further configured to direct the electric current flow from the anode towards the substrate through the HSP.
Dietrich et al. is directed toward a method of producing targeted flow and current density patters (title) so it is analogous art to Nagai et al.
Dietrich et al. discloses an embodiment of a flow distributor depicted in Fig. 2 (reproduced above). The components of the distribution body are explained in detail in ¶35-¶45. The flow distributor has a front face 2 fand a rear face 3 that are positioned opposite of each other (FIG. 2). The front face 2 faces the substrate (i.e.: cathode) and the rear face 3 faces the anode (i.e.: counter electrode) as explained in ¶37-39 with a hollow space disposed between the faces. This structure is analogous to the first amendment to Claim 1 (i.e.: wherein the distribution body comprises a front surface facing the substrate and a rear surface facing an anode). Dietrich et al. further explains that the electric field is generated by the two electrodes 11 and 12 (attached to the substrate and counter electrode) as per ¶36 and FIG. 2 so the electric field extends through the flow distributor body 1. Placement of the distributor facilitates a particular strong incoming flow 13 and with electric field both facilitating a plating reaction at the substrate (cathode) as per ¶36. The previous mentioned construction is analogous to the “HSP” of amended Claim 1 as the flow speed is described as strong. As per ¶40-41 and depicted in FIG. 2 of Dietrich et al., the flow of electrolyte 6 through the distribution body initiates at inlet 5 into the chamber 7 with the electrolyte then flowing toward either the substrate or the anode via connecting passages 9. If the electrolyte flows toward the substrate, it exits the flow distributor 1 via outlet openings 8 in the incoming flow direction 13 (FIG. 2 and ¶41). If the electrolyte flows toward the anode, it exits the flow distributor 1 in the backflow direction 14 (FIG. 2 and ¶41). The electrolyte exiting the flow distributor can be recirculated via drain 18 (FIG. 2 and ¶42).
Further pertaining to the amendment to Claim 1 in regard to the HSP controlling the flow direction of current and electrolyte/process liquid, Dietrich et al. explains that the counter electrode body is advantageously attached in the rear region of the flow distributor body, in mechanical contact with, or spatially separated from, the flow distributor body such that the electric current flow is carried out between the counter electrode and the substrate acting as the electrode within the process solution through the connecting passages (¶23). Moreover, Dietrich et al. teaches that the arrangement of the anode and the cathode acting on different sides of the flow distributor body has the advantage of enabling a homogenous field line distribution of an electric field allowing the surface areas reacting with the process solution to be electrically and chemically treated homogenously (¶24). Finally, the flow distributor body may be positioned freely between the named electrodes such that the desired reaction on the parts of the substrate surface is substantially influenced by the incoming flow caused by the flow distributor body (¶24) of Dietrich. The discussion of current flow and control electrolyte flow in ¶23-24 as explained above maps onto the second part of the amendment to Claim 1 (i.e.: wherein the HSP is configured to direct the process fluid flow from inside the HSP via the jet holes towards the substrate, and-discharge a return flow of the process fluid back from the substrate through the HSP to an opposite side of the substrate via the drain holes that extend through the HSP, the drain holes are further configured to direct the electric current flow from the anode towards the substrate through the HSP).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Nagai et al. by including a separate distributor body discrete from the anode (counter electrode) and the substrate (cathode) using a high speed plate as taught by Dietrich et al. with the reasonable expectation of being able to precisely control the flow of the electrolyte and the flow of electrical current to yield higher quality metallic coatings on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 9, Nagai et al. in view of Dietrich et al. disclose 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 of Nagai et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Nagai et al. in view of Dietrich et al. disclose 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 of Nagai et al.
Response to Arguments
7. The examiner withdraws the rejection of Claim 5 and Claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) since the applicant’s amendment removed the broader range after the narrower range in each claim.
8. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-7, filed 15 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are generally persuasive pertaining to the previously presented references teaching a discrete distributor body between a separate set of electrodes. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kunisawa et al. in view of Dietrich and/or Nagai et al. in view of Dietrich et al. The updated reasons for the rejection of Claim 1 and all dependent claims is explained in detail above.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
Prosecution Insights