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 .
Examination
It is noted that claims 1-8 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrolysis bath" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that line 1-2 recites “an acidic, aqueous, cyanide-free electrolytic bath.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on 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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,620,583 of Kuhn et al.
As to claims 1 and 5, Kuhn teaches a method for stabilizing the deposition of platinum from an acidic, aqueous, cyanide-free electrolytic bath containing a platinum sulfamate complex (Kuhn, col 1 line 62 thru col 2 line 22), comprising destroying an amidosulfonic acid released from the platinum sulfamate complex in the electrolytic bath during electrolysis (Kuhn, col 2 lines 45-52).
As noted within Kuhn, any sulfamate (and thus present in acidic form in an acidic electrolyte) that is liberated in the course of the deposition of the platinum is hydrolyzed and does not accumulate in the electrolyte.
As to claim 5-6, Kuhn teaches the amidosulfonic acid is hydrolyzed and does not accumulate such that the electrolytic bath is heated between 60 - 90 °C during deposition (Kuhn, col 2 lines 35-39).
As to the limitation of “time to time,” this does not define a specific timeframe by which the process is performed such that continual heating or intermittent heating are covered by the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
As to claim 7, Kuhn teaches the pH is less than 7 (Kuhn, col 1 lines 62-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5,620,583 of Kuhn et al.
As to claim 8, Kuhn teaches to the method of claim 1.
It is noted that claim 8 is an optional process. In the event of interruption, the electrolytic bath is reused after destroying the amidosulfonic acid. However, if no interruption is performed, this process does not have to occur, thus being anticipated by Kuhn when no interruption is performed.
Alternatively, it would also be obvious in view of Kuhn.
Kuhn teaches the bath is stable when not in use (Kuhn, col 1 lines 57-58).
It is noted that no free amidosulfuric acid is present in the plating bath, thus even when plating is interrupted no additional impurities form that decompose, precipitate or reduce efficiency of the electrolytic bath.
Thus as Kuhn teaches any sulphamate is hydrolyzed and does not accumulate in the bath, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that free amidosulfuric acid is continually being destroyed (hydrolyzed) even when electrolysis is interrupted as the electrolytic bath remains stable when not in use as disclosed by Kuhn.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,673,472 of Morrissey et al.
As to claim 2, Kuhn teaches to the method of claim 1.
Kuhn does not specifically teach adding a quantity of soluble nitrite salt corresponding to the amidosulfonic acid to the electrolytic bath.
Morrissey teaches to plating solutions (palladium and alloys thereof including platinum) that utilize diaminodinitrite with additional acids as a scavenger (Morrissey, Abstract).
Morrissey teaches that diaminodinitrite salts react with an acid HA (including sulfamate acids) to form an equilibrium to scavenge nitrous acid which would also complex the sulfamate (Morrissey, col 2 lines 38-58).
As Kuhn teaches that it is desirable to not have free amidosulfuric acid present in the solution (Kuhn, col 1 lines 50-57 and col 2 lines 45-56), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Kuhn to utilize Morrissey so as to add a scavenger such as a nitrite salt to the electrolyte in order to form an equilibrium with the sulfamate acid in solution such that no precipitate is formed therein, thus producing a stable plating bath that produces crack free deposits.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8,808,521 of Zhou.
As to claim 3, Kuhn teaches to the method of claim 1.
Kuhn does not specifically teach detecting the amount of free amidosulfonic acid in the electrolytic solution.
Zhou teaches of system for controlling a plating bath composition (Zhou, Abstract).
Zhou additionally teaches that within a plating bath to detect, identify and quantify degradation products as well as additive concentrations within the plating bath in order to allow for precise control of the plating bath composition which additionally minimizes the frequency of unexplained plating bath events and process outliers (Zhou, col 8 lines 26-54, col 9 lines 5-15, and col 18 lines 42-62).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuhn as per Zhou so as to detect a concentration of a degradation product within the electrolyte in order to allow for precise control of the plating bath as well as minimize issues within the plating bath due to unwanted components therein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759