DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objections and Rejections
All previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0274620).
Chemical Book (2024) is herein cited as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Kovarsky discloses a method for a semiconductor plating system abstract, [0007]-[0008], [0021] (= a semiconductor plating method), the method comprising:
Placing a substrate (14) into an electroplating cell (11) with a plating solution abstract, [0021] (= placing a semiconductor substrate in contact with a plating solution);
Water of the plating solution is consumed [0027] having a first pH range [0013], [0036] (= reducing a volume of the plating solution having a first pH in a plating bath from a first volume to a second volume); and
Replenishing the plating solution and decreasing the acidity [0012]-[0013], [0048] (= adding a replenishment agent to the plating solution to increase the volume of the plating solution from the second volume to the first volume, wherein the replenishment agent is characterized by a second pH, wherein the second pH varies from the first pH by less than or about 5). Kovarsky discloses the pH including 2.5 to 4.5 (anolyte) and -0.5 to 3 (catholyte) [0032]. As evidenced by Chemical Book, the pH of hydrogen peroxide (= replenishing agent) is between 4.5 to 7.0 and usually between 3 to 6 and therefore satisfies the claimed the second pH varies from the first pH by less than or about 5.
The disclosure of Kovarsky differs from the instant claim in that Kovarsky does not disclose the amount of volume from a first volume to a second volume, however, Kovarsky discloses that water is consumed in the plating solution therefore the volume necessarily is reduced and using the replenishing method of Kovarsky, the volume with the addition or dosing of an oxidizing agent, the volume would necessarily increase (abstract). Regarding the “reducing formation of insoluble deposits” of the preamble, Kovarsky renders the claimed invention obvious and therefore would necessarily result in reducing formation of insoluble deposits.
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 7-8, Kovarsky discloses a first pH range including 2.0 to 2.7 and adjusting to a pH range including 2.8 to 3.5 [0036] and is within the claimed range of less than or about 3 (as applied to claims 5 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Kovarsky discloses the plating solution comprising copper ions [0033].
Regarding claim 4, Kovarsky discloses the claimed invention as applied above. Kovarsky does not explicitly disclose a precipitate from the plating solution, however, while Kovarsky does not specifically address the claim limitation “precipitate”, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the method steps taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness [or, reasonable anticipation rejection] has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kovarsky discloses the use of anolyte (= anode water) [0042].
Regarding claim 11, Kovarsky discloses the use of hydrogen peroxide and as evidenced by Chemical Book, the pH of hydrogen peroxide is between 4.5 to 7.0 and usually between 3 to 6. The range of Kovarsky is close enough to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Kovarksy discloses that water is consumed during the plating [0027]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that consumption of water would occur through evaporation during an electroplating process.
Regarding claim 13, Kovarsky discloses that the copper ion concentration and other solution components are depleted during electroplating and subsequently replenished with the addition of copper ions, acid, etc. [0031], [0041]. Kovarsky discloses a copper concentration including 50 mM to about 1.5 M [0031]. Kovarsky does not indicate the weight percentage variation, however, Kovarsky discloses control over the composition of the plating solution [0044]. Moreover, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Kovarsky discloses the claimed invention as applied above. The instant specification indicates that electrolyzed water includes anode water. Kovarsky discloses replenishing using anolyte and/or catholyte solutions [0033].
Regarding claim 15, Kovarsky discloses replenishing using hydrogen peroxide for example and is therefore generally free of mineral acids.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0274620) in view of Karagol (US 2011/0210006).
Regarding claim 6, the pH range of Kovarsky is acidic as discussed above. Kovarsky fails to disclose the pH range between 8 to about 12.
In a similar field of endeavor, Karagol discloses a method for cleaning galvanic baths including an alkaline zinc based electrolyte and a regeneration solution with alkaline range pH (> 10) [0031]. Karagol discloses that the method is applicable to acidic and alkaline electrolytes for plating (abstract). Karagol discloses that the cleaning process extends the lifetime of electrolytes and removes undesirable decomposition products [0001].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a pH in the range of 8 to 12 because in the same or similar field of reusing and adjusting electrolytes, Karagol discloses that the process is applicable to alkaline solutions. It would have been obvious to utilize the method concept of Kovarsky with varying electrolyte chemistry which would include either acidic or alkaline based electrolytes and regenerating solutions. The teachings of Kovarsky and Karagol overlap in several aspects and therefore their combination would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0274620), in view of Kuhlmann et al. (US 5,690,804) and in view of Cooke et al. (US 3,471,375).
Regarding claims 16-19, Kovarsky discloses the claimed invention as applied above. Kovarsky fails to disclose a heat comprising a seal and contacting the substrate with one or more insoluble ions.
Kuhlmann discloses a method for regenerating electrolyte in a galvanizing process (title); comprising a galvanizing bath (15), a bath supply, a pH of the galvanizing bath, contacting the substrate with one or more insoluble ions (e.g. iron precipitate in solution) and adding a replenishment agent such as H2O2 (= conditioning system with an acid; as applied to claims 17-19) having a second pH (abstract, Col. 3 line 50 – Col. 4 line 20, see only Figure). The difference in pH is implicit since Kuhlmann discloses that the pH in the electrolyte is raised in a controlled manner to 2.9 to 3.5 which would be a variation of less than 5.
Kovarsky in view of Kuhlmann fails to disclose a head and seal as claimed.
Cooke discloses a process for continuous electrochemical treatment including a cover (124) (= head) as part of a liquid seal structure including suitable seals at the entrance and exit of the strip (Col. 9 lines 55-68). Regarding moving the head or cover of Cooke, the movability of the cover or head is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 V A). The cover of Cooke may be removed and replaced for routine maintenance and/or cleaning particularly given that the cover is utilized as a splash recovery structure.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising a head and seal because Cooke discloses in a similar field of endeavor, utilizing a head or cover to protect against splashing and sealing to control the electrolyte in the continuous process.
Regarding claim 20, Kovarsky discloses the use of anolyte (= electrolyzed water) [0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 February 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks on pages 6-8 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection which have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights