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 05 December 2025 has been entered into the record and is considered fully responsive. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended and new Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been added. The examiner finds the amended claims and the new claims did not add any new matter. Currently, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 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, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al.
Kato (US Pub. No. 2008/0115810 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a method of reactivating an electrode for electrolysis (title). Chang (JP2019157270A – previously presented) is directed toward an apparatus for the manufacturing of copper foil using a drum cathode (abstract). Tedeschi (GB1076979A – previously presented) is a patent application directed at a surface treatment cleaning. Niinae et al. (“Removal of Lead from Contaminated Soils with Chelating Agents,” Mater. Trans. 2008, 49(10), 2377-2382 – previously presented) is directed toward the effect of forming Pb-complexed with chelating agents (pg. 2377: title).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses a two-step process of reactivating an electrode for electrolysis that has a reduction in performance due to the deposition of lead compounds on the surface of said electrode (abstract). The first step involves the removal of the lead compound from the surface by application of an aqueous mixture of nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide to remove lead compound, in particular lead hydroxide, via dissolution (abstract, ¶10, 18, 26, 28-30, and 37). The last step of the procedure of Kato involves a high-pressure water washing step in order to physically remove any remaining lead (or antimony) compound whether dissolved in the cleaning composition or adsorbed (abstract and ¶10, 18, 26, 28-29, 32, and examples). Kato indicates in ¶9 that the method for reactivating an electrode is applicable to apparatus or electrodes for electrolytic copper production; however, Kato is silent on the particular details around said apparatus.
Chang is directed toward a cathode drum and concave anode for the formation of copper foil (abstract). According to Fig. 1 and ¶50, the apparatus comprises an electrolytic cell 1, an electrolyte solution 2, an anode electrode 3, a cathode drum 4, and a thin metal plate 5. The apparatus is used to prepare thin plates (e.g.: foils) of metal such as copper, which is electrodeposited onto the cathode drum from the electrolyte solution and formed into rolls with further details discussed in ¶3 to ¶9. In the electrolytic apparatus, the anode is necessarily concave shaped to accommodate the drum-shaped cathode as evidenced in Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method reactivating an electrode of Kato to the Cu-plating apparatus with a drum-shaped cathode and a concave anode of Chang with the reasonable expectation of reactivating an anode that had lost activity due to the electrolytic manufacturing of copper.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png]
Fig. 1 from Chang showing an apparatus for electrolytic copper foil production)]
Further pertaining to Claim 1, the combination of Kato and Chang does not disclose the use of a cleaning composition comprising citric acid/EDTA nor the application temperature of the cleaning composition). The cleaning composition of Kato does not disclose a pH, but the cleaning composition is very acidic given the high concentration of nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide, which is a potentially hazardous mixture due to its corrosive and oxidizing properties.
Tedeschi discloses a cleaning composition for removal of deposited materials from metal surface including lead compounds via chelation using aminopolycarboxylic acids (pg. 4 lines 100-102 to pg. 5 lines 1-8). On pg. 4 in the Table of Tedeschi, the cleaning composition comprises an aqueous mixture of aminopolycarboxylic acids or salts thereof with sequestering properties and carboxylic acids having sequestering properties with a pH range of 6 to 8. Tedeschi indicates that the aminopolycarboxylic acid can be the tetrasodium salt of EDTA (pg. 5 lines 30-50) and the preferred carboxylic acid is citric acid (pg. 5 lines 126-129) since it was found to have a synergistic effect when combined with EDTA for dissolving large concentrations of metal compounds (pg. 6 lines 1-12). Tedeschi further discloses an operating temperature range of 21℃ to 87 ℃ (70 ℉ to 190 ℉) in Table I on pg. 11 showing the chelation extent of different metals. The combination of Kato, Chang, and Tedeschi does suggest the formation of a chelated lead using the cleaning composition, but does not provide direct evidence for the formation of Pb-EDTA.
Niinae et al. evaluated the efficiency of chelating lead ions in solution at various pH levels with the data depicted in Fig. 1 below. The larger the log [Conditional stability constant], the higher the concentration of said complex in solution. By comparing the y-axis for the Pb-citrate and Pb-EDTA over the pH range of 7-9, Pb-EDTA has a higher log [Conditional stability constant] by at least 10 orders of magnitude indicating that EDTA and citrate have significantly different chelating capabilities with respect to Pb ions. In mixed solution comprising citrate and EDTA anions, the former species acts in a buffering capacity and the latter species is the chelating agent. Therefore, Niinae et al. provides direct evidence for the formation of Pb-EDTA at the pH range disclosed in Tedeschi (e.g.: 6 to 8) as Pb-EDTA has the highest conditional stability constant at a pH around 8.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses values that overlap with claimed range (e.g.: pH and operational temperature). See MPEP 2144.05(I) - Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method of removing lead compounds from a concave anode of Kato and Chang with the cleaning composition disclosed by the combination of Tedeschi and Niinae et al. with the reasonable expectation of easily removing lead from the surface of the anode at more mild conditions (pH near neutral) using a chelating agent.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image2.png]
Source: Niinae et al. pg. 2379)]
Regarding the amendment to Claim 1, the new limitation “wherein a pH of the cleaning solution is adjusted within the range from 7 to 9 controlling an amount of citric acid,” is met by the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al.as the amount of citric acid present in the cleaning composition as Tedeschi indicates that the citric acid concentration is preferably kept between 3% and 15% of the cleaning composition (pg. 5 lines 73-129 through pg. 6 lines 1-36). Keeping the concentration of citric acid within the aforementioned range (i.e.: 3 to 15%) in the presence of the EDTA sodium salt (and other additives) will ensure the pH stays in the range of 6 to 8 (which overlaps with the range of 7 to 9 as indicated in amended Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. disclose the method according to Claim 1, wherein the pH of the cleaning solution is maintained during the cleaning of the anode as supported by Tedeschi on pg. 7 lines 17-23.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. disclose the method according to Claim 1, wherein the temperature of the cleaning solution is maintained during the cleaning of the anode as supported by Tedeschi indicating an operating temperature range of 21℃ to 87 ℃ (70 ℉ to 190 ℉) in Table I on pg. 11.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. disclose the method according to Claim 1, wherein the EDTA in the cleaning solution is EDTA-4Na as illustrated by . Tedeschi indicates that the aminopolycarboxylic acid can be the tetrasodium salt of EDTA (pg. 5 lines 30-50). EDTA-4Na is used in numerous examples in Tedeschi additionally.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. disclose the method according to Claim 1, wherein the lead materials attached to the surface of the anode for manufacturing copper foil is temporarily bonded to the EDTA in the cleaning solution as supported by Niinae et al in Fig. 1 which depicts stability constants for lead-EDTA complexes as a function of pH.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Pociecha et al.
Kato (US Pub. No. 2008/0115810 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a method of reactivating an electrode for electrolysis (title). Chang (JP2019157270A – previously presented) is directed toward an apparatus for the manufacturing of copper foil using a drum cathode (abstract). Tedeschi (GB1076979A – previously presented) is a patent application directed at a surface treatment cleaning. Niinae et al. (“Removal of Lead from Contaminated Soils with Chelating Agents,” Mater. Trans. 2008, 49(10), 2377-2382 – previously presented) is directed toward the effect of forming Pb-complexed with chelating agents (pg. 2377: title). Pociecha et al. (“Electrochemical EDTA recycling after soil washing of Pb, Zn and Cd contaminated soil,” J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 714-721 – previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. discloses the method according to Claim 1, but is silent on the electrolysis of the EDTA aqueous solution to recover the lead materials.
Pociecha et al. is directed toward the recycling of EDTA and recovery of heavy metals, such as Pb, from solution (pg. 714: title). Pociecha et al. discloses the electrodeposition of Pb onto stainless steel cathode in the presence of a sacrificial Al anode resulted in the recovery of 98% of the lead and 88% of the EDTA (pg. 714: abstract). Moreover, Pociecha et al. found that reusing the EDTA sequestering solution resulted in effective recovery of lead (pg. 714: abstract).
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 method of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. by recovering the sequestered lead from the cleaning composition using electrolysis as taught by Pociecha et al, with the reasonable expectation of completely separating the EDTA from the Pb resulting in a lower cost operation as the EDTA cleaning solution can be used again.
7. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Peckham.
Kato (US Pub. No. 2008/0115810 A1 – previously presented) is directed towards a method of reactivating an electrode for electrolysis (title). Chang (JP2019157270A – previously presented) is directed toward an apparatus for the manufacturing of copper foil using a drum cathode (abstract). Tedeschi (GB1076979A – previously presented) is a patent application directed at a surface treatment cleaning. Niinae et al. (“Removal of Lead from Contaminated Soils with Chelating Agents,” Mater. Trans. 2008, 49(10), 2377-2382 – previously presented) is directed toward the effect of forming Pb-complexed with chelating agents (pg. 2377: title). Peckham (EP0250195A2) is directed toward a dual sided copper plating line (abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. discloses the method according to Claim 1, but only teaches a single set of a convex anode and a drum cathode. The use of a multi-stage coating line, having a plurality of anodes, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the end use of the plated copper articles. As such, one of ordinary skill would investigate multi-stage plating apparatus to produce copper plated materials with unique properties. Peckham presents a plating line embodiments in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 having a plurality (i.e.: two anodes 13 and 13a) that are in either the same tank or separate tanks with each anode is partially contoured around a drum cathode (elements 12 and 12a) (see ¶12, ¶24, and ¶29-30 for the written explanation). The advantage if this assembly is for the production of a dual sides matte finish copper foil which are useful for improved adhesion. According to Peckham, it is well known that in producing printed circuit board laminates, substantially improved adhesion can be obtained between the copper foil and the circuit board substrate by bonding the "matte" surface of the copper foil on the substrate (¶2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. to the apparatus of Peckham having multiple anode/cathode pairs with the reasonable expectation of effectively cleaning both sets of electrodes (i.e.: a plurality of anodes).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, Niinae et al., and Peckham discloses the method according to Claim 7 and further teaches wherein the plurality of anodes are arranged in a multi-stage unit as per FIG. 2 in Peckham showing two separate anode/drum cathode pairs.
Response to Arguments
8. The examiner withdrawals the previous objection of the specification as the applicant’s amendments addressed the examiner’s issue with the naming of EDTA as explained in the office action dated 08 September 2025.
9. Applicant's arguments filed 05 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained above in amended Claim 1, the examiner indicated that the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al. teaches the new limitation “wherein a pH of the cleaning solution is adjusted within the range from 7 to 9 controlling an amount of citric acid.” The amount of citric acid present in the cleaning composition as Tedeschi indicates that the citric acid concentration is preferably kept between 3% and 15% of the cleaning composition (pg. 5 lines 73-129 through pg. 6 lines 1-36). Keeping the concentration of citric acid within the aforementioned range (i.e.: 3 to 15%) in the presence of the EDTA sodium salt (and other additives) will ensure the pH stays in the range of 6 to 8 (which overlaps with the range of 7 to 9 as indicated in amended Claim 1).
Alternatively, if the applicant is attempting to claim that the citric acid is the species used to adjust the pH after the addition of the Na4EDTA to the cleaning composition, the applicant should clearly state the sequence of steps used to prepare the cleaning composition. However, the applicant is reminded that as per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) that selection of any order of mixing ingredients is a prima facie case of obviousness. As such, adding the citric acid subsequent to the Na4EDTA would be prima facie case obvious to adjust (or maintain) the pH between 7 and 9 as required by amended Claim 1. In order to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness, the significance of the order of addition would need to be demonstrated to be integral for the purported invention (e.g.: unexpected result).
10. Regarding the new claims (i.e.: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), the reasons for the rejections are explains above, but are (primarily) based on the combination of Kato, Chang, Tedeschi, and Niinae et al.
Conclusion
11. 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.
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