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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10 April 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Banik is herein maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-4, 7, and 8 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.
As to claim 1, the recitation “the de-bubbling flow of plating solution through the resistive element being generated independently of the injection of the plating solution received by the plating cell.”(emphasis added) is deemed new matter as the phrasing is not present in the instant application.
Claims 2-4, 7, and 8 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-…. are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banik et al (US 2019/0338440 A1).
As to claim 1, Banik discloses an electroplating apparatus for depositing a metal layer on a substrate (Title “plating cells”, Abstract “electroplating apparatus” among other passages), the electroplating apparatus comprising:
a plating cell to receive an injection plating solution (#101 in Figure 2A among other Figures);
an electrode (#104 as defined in the instant specification at [40]) ;
a counter electrode([0100] “The substrate 102 acts as a cathode when power is supplied to the electroplating cell 101 during electroplating” in order for the cathode to be supplied power it necessarily is contacted by an electrode to enable carrying the power supplied which satisfied the specific electrode as claimed provided the broadest reasonable interpretation as provided in the instant specification at [40[ as filed);
a substrate holding fixture (#103);
a resistive element (#107); and
a de-bubbler device supported rotatably ([0132] “substrate 700 is placed in the substrate holder 103…” [0140]-[0141]) adjacent the resistive element wherein the de-bubbler device includes a flow generation impeller. (Fig. 9D jagged lines or serpentine lines which satisfy an impeller shape as disclosed at instant Fig. 2 of a curved impeller 206) such that a rotation of the de-bubbler device while supported rotatably in the plating solution causes the flow to generate a de-bubbling flow a flow of plating solution through the resistive element (#700 as shown in Fig. 7A [0130] “the substrate 700 is used to focus the flow of the electrolyte as shown in FIG. 7B to remove the air bubbles. Accordingly, the substrate 700 may also be called a flow focusing substrate.”).
As to the limitation “the de-bubbling flow of plating solution through the resistive element being generated independently of the injection of the plating solution received by the plating cell” is drawn towards the functionality of the device. Banik discloses that electrolyte is injected, but the de-bubbling flow is caused by the device, and not the injection of electrolyte. Electrolyte is required in both Banik and the instant application in order to dislodge the bubbles. Thus, the injection, herein interpreted as a providing of an electrolyte, is necessary in both cases. The actual de-bubbling is not a part of injecting electrolyte. In other words, providing merely injection of electrolyte, de-bubbling would not occur. However, with electrolyte present, the de-bubbling occurs upon rotation of the device. The device of Banik further provided with serpentine or zig-zag shape which, as evidenced by the instant specification, are necessarily able to de-bubble without a continual injection of electrolyte. See MPEP 2114.
As to claim 2, Banik further discloses wherein the de-bubbler device generates an upward flow of plating solution through the resistive element to remove bubbles trapped thereunder (See Fig. 7B arrows of flow up through the resistive element’s channels 112 [0133]).
As to claim 3, Banik further discloses wherein the de-bubbler device is mountable in the substrate holding fixture ([0132] “that the substrate 700 is placed in the substrate holder 103”).
As to claim 4, Banik further discloses wherein the de-bubbler device includes a wafer-shaped plate. (See Fig. 9B showing wafer shaped de-bubblers 700-1-700-4).
As to claims 7 and 8, Banik further discloses wherein de-bubbler device includes a flow control element, wherein the flow control element includes a cross-rib (#702 protuberances).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s first argument that Banik does not disclose a flow-generating impeller, this argument is not persuasive because how the impeller generates the flow is not germane to the particular limitation. It is clear from paragraph [0162] that the substrates used a flow focusing substrate. Thus, the flow focused via the substrate is the generated flow within the device to dislodge bubble therein.
In response to Applicant’s second argument that Banik fails to disclose the de-bubbler device is rotationally supported, this argument is not persuasive because the de-bubbler of Banik is supported within the substrate holder ([0132]) of which is rotatable with the de-bubbler device therein ([0141]).
In response to Applicant’s argument towards the amended claim language that Banik’s device’s flow is not generated independently of the injection of plating fluid, the amended language has been addressed above and the reason for rejection are maintained at outlined therein. In sum, the device of Banik is structurally capable of generating said fluid due to the impeller formation in providing different patterns on the surface. Further, the flow to de-bubble is a direct result of using the device, since without it, the flow to perform the de-bubbling would not be provided.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 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 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights