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 .
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2004/0016637) in view of Woods et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0296166).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a system for automated single tank surface treatment (paragraphs 14, 56, 113, 114 – a single plating cell may be used to avoid cross contamination issues with different chemistries), the system comprising:
a process tank/plating cell configured to hold therein a workpiece to be treated (paragraphs 115, 117),
a manifold (1832) fluidly coupled to the process tank (paragraph 115; figure 18);
a controller coupled to the manifold (1832) and configured to control operation of the manifold (paragraph 117 – the additives are coupled to a controller for flowing electrochemical plating solutions to a plating cell via the manifold), and
a plurality of holding tanks/additive sources (1802) in fluid communication with the process tank via the manifold (1832; paragraphs 115, 117).
Yang fails to teach that each of the plurality of holding tanks include a solution for the surface treatment, the plurality of holding tanks include at least two of a pre-treatment tank, a rinsing tank, an etching tank an anodizing tank, a desmutting tank, a dyeing tank, and a sealing tank; wherein the manifold is configured to transfer each solution for the surface treatment between each corresponding holding tank and the process tank during the surface treatment.
Woods discloses a system comprising a process module/station (102; figure 2) configured to hold therein a substrate to be treated (paragraphs 27, 35), a manifold (112) fluidly coupled to the process module/station (102), a controller coupled to the manifold (112) and configured to control operation of the manifold (paragraphs 26-27), and a plurality of holding tanks (114) in fluid communication with the process module (102) via the manifold (112; paragraphs 25-27); the holding tanks include at least two of a pre-treatment tank (cleaning), an etching tank, plating or other operations (paragraphs 26-27); wherein the manifold (112) is configured to transfer each solution for the surface treatment between each corresponding holding tank (114) and the process module/station (102) during the surface treatment (paragraphs 25-27). This arrangement allows a single process module to perform a variety of processing including, but not limited to etching, cleaning, plating and other substrate preparation operations which improves processing techniques that can minimize both substrate handling and consumption of process chemicals (paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include multiple holding tanks, each configured to store a process solution, and to transfer each solution between each corresponding holding tank and the process tank of Yang because as taught by Woods, this arrangement allows a single process module to perform a variety of processing including, but not limited to etching, cleaning, plating and other substrate preparation operations which improves processing techniques that can minimize both substrate handling and consumption of process chemicals.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches wherein the process tank comprises: a conductive support configured to hold a workpiece to be anodized and electrically coupled to a power supply source (paragraphs 61, 68); and
one or more cathodes electrically coupled to the power supply source (paragraphs 61, 156);
wherein the power supply source is configured to apply a voltage between the one or more cathodes and the workpiece via the conductive support (paragraphs 61, 156-157, 159).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Yang further comprises a heating element (600; figure 6; paragraph 68); a cooling plate (paragraph 66), and a vacuum outlet (paragraphs 62, 69).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses wherein the cell may comprise a dome shape that operates to enclose a processing space between the dome (paragraph 77). MPEP 2144.04.IV.B – the shape is a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Regarding claim 5, the manifold (112) of Woods comprises: a plurality of connectors (116; figure 2); a plurality of valves (118) respectively fluidly coupled to the plurality of connectors (116) and to a plurality of input lines (109); a plurality of valve actuators respectively coupled to the plurality of valves (118); and an output valve fluidly coupled to the plurality of connectors (116) and to an output line (into the processing module/station 102 - paragraphs 25-27).
Regarding claim 6, Woods discloses wherein each of the plurality of input lines (109) is fluidly coupled to one of the holding tanks (114; as shown in figure 2; paragraphs 25-27).
Regarding claim 7, the outlet valve of Woods is fluidly coupled to the process module/station (102; figure 2; paragraphs 25-27).
Regarding claim 8, the surface treatment of Yang is an electroplating treatment (abstract; paragraphs 18-22). While Yang fails to teach an anodization treatment, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the surface treatment of Yang is an electroplating treatment (abstract; paragraphs 18-22).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0296166) in view of Spurlin et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0102209).
Regarding claim 10, Woods discloses a system for automated single tank surface treatment (paragraphs 25-27, 35 – a single process module 102 may be used), the system comprising:
a process module/station (102) coupled to a power supply (the process station comprises a plating assembly and thus, a power supply is inherently present; figure 2; paragraph 27);
a plurality of holding tanks (114), each holding a fluid that is part of the surface treatment (paragraphs 25-27).
a manifold (112) fluidly coupled to the process module/station (102) and to the plurality of holding tanks (114); and
a controller coupled to the manifold (112) and configured to control operation of the manifold and plating cell (paragraphs 25-27).
Woods fails to teach a processor operatively coupled to the manifold, the process tank, the power supply, the plurality of holding tanks, and an input device; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving, at the input device, information related to the surface treatment of the workpiece;
determining, via the processor, one or more operations to achieve the surface treatment of the workpiece based on the received information; and
performing, via the processor, the one or more operations to treat the surface of the workpiece.
Spurlin discloses an electrochemical system comprising a controller including one or more processors operatively coupled to a plating tank, a power supply, electrolyte tanks (electroplating conditions, such as pH, electrolyte components, current density are controlled to facilitate electrodeposition; paragraphs 31, 73, 108, 118), and an input device (user interface - paragraphs 100, 110-114); and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform a set of operations (paragraphs 110-112, 117, 129) comprising:
receiving, at the input device, information related to the surface treatment of the workpiece (paragraphs 112, 119, 120);
determining, via the processor, one or more operations to achieve the surface treatment of the workpiece based on the received information (paragraphs 117-120, 129); and
performing, via the processor, one or more operations to treat the surface of the workpiece (paragraphs 117-120, 129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a processor coupled to memory storing instructions in the control system of Woods, because as taught by Spurlin, this provides an effective and faster control of all the activities of the electrochemical operation while enabling remote access to the system (paragraphs 110, 130).
Regarding claim 11, the surface treatment of Spurlin comprises an electroplating treatment; and the information comprises at least thickness of an electroplated layer (paragraphs 32, 76, 89). While Yang fails to teach an anodization treatment, it has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 requires the information to comprise at least one of thickness, color or a type of sealant. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration as it does not further limit the thickness of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Spurlin further teaches wherein the process tank comprises at least one cathode facing the workpiece, and the one or more operations comprise at least controlling the temperature thresholds, electroplating conditions, i.e. pH, voltage and plating cell pressure (paragraphs 31, 64, 74, 76, 108, 118).
Regarding claim 14, the control mechanism of Woods comprises flowing the one or more fluids from the holding tanks (114) to the process module (102) and flowing the one or more fluids from the process module to the holding tanks, as desired using valves, regulators and other flow control devices (paragraphs 25-27).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate a processor with memory storing instructors in the system of Yang, to treat the surface of the workpiece based on the received information by the processor, as taught by Spurlin, in order to effectively control all the activities of the electroplating apparatus (paragraphs 110-111, 113, 117).
Regarding claim 15, the surface treatment of Spurlin comprises an electroplating treatment; and the information comprises at least thickness of an electroplated layer (paragraphs 32, 76, 89).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach "a plurality of holding tanks in fluid communication with the process tank via the manifold, each of the plurality of holding tanks including a solution for the surface treatment, the plurality of holding tanks including at least two of a pre-treatment tank, a rinsing tank, an etching tank an anodizing tank, a desmutting tank, a dyeing tank, and a sealing tank, the manifold is configured to transfer each solution for the surface treatment between each corresponding holding tank and the process tank during the surface treatment," as amended.
Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Woods et al.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights