DETAILED ACTION
Elections/Restrictions
1. This office action is a response to Applicant's election filed on 03/31/2026 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-25 for further examination. Claims 26-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/02/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “filling level measuring device” in claim 13; “heating device” in claim 14; “pumping device” in claim 18; “filter device” in claim 19; “volume flow device” in claim 20; “sample-analysis device” in claim 22; “cooling device” in claim 23; “dosing arrangement” in claim 24; “moving device” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner' s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-5 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As regards to claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “the bottom”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the bottom” as “a bottom”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “a bottom”.
As regards to claim 3, lines 6-7 recites the limitation “the bottom wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the bottom wall” as “a bottom wall”. To correct this problem, amend lines 6-7 to recite “a bottom wall”.
As regards to claim 3, lines 7-8 recites the limitation “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the circumference” as “a circumference”. To correct this problem, amend lines 7-8 to recite “a circumference”.
As regards to claim 4, line 2 recites the limitation “the side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the side” as “a side”. To correct this problem, amend line 2 to recite “a side”.
As regards to claim 8, lines 4 (twice) & 5 recite the limitation “the additional basin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the additional basin” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 8 to depend from claim 7.
As regards to claim 9, lines 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 (twice) recite the limitation “the additional basin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the additional basin” as recited. To correct this problem, amend claim 9 to depend from claim 8.
As regards to claim 9, line 4 recites the limitation “the side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting “the side” as “a side”. To correct this problem, amend line 4 to recite “a side”.
Claim 5 is rejected at least based on their dependency from claim 4.
Claim Rejections
8. 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 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-12, 14 & 25 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parzefall (CN 114829673 A - equivalent US 2023/0047104 A1 used for examination and citation purposes) hereinafter Parzefall (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Parzefall are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 1, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), comprising: a basin arrangement (see fig 1) having a basin (10) forming a processing chamber (inside of 10) and serving to receive a solution of a metal dissolved in a liquid, for a deposition on an object (5) receivable in the processing chamber (inside of 10), the basin (10) having at least one inlet (15) for introducing the solution into the basin (10), wherein the basin (10) has a perforation (see fig 1, hole in 11 connecting to 15) which forms at least part of the inlet (15) of the basin (10) and which is configured to homogeneously introduce the solution into the processing chamber (inside of 10) ([0001]-[0002]; [0014]; [0016]-[0017]; [0033]; [0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 2, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the inlet (15) of the basin (10) is disposed on a bottom (see fig 1) of the basin (10), a bottom wall (11) of the basin (10) having the perforation (see fig 1, hole in 11 connecting to 15) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 3, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin (10) has a substructure (see fig 1, L-shaped pipe feeding each of the three 15) which forms part of the inlet (15) of the basin (10) and which is disposed below the bottom wall (11) of the basin (10), the substructure (see fig 1, L-shaped pipe feeding each of the three 15) forming a cavity (see fig 1, inside of pipe) through which the solution can flow and which is limited (see fig 1) at least by the bottom wall (11) of the basin (10) and a bottom wall (11) of the substructure (see fig 1, L-shaped pipe feeding each of the three 15), the basin (10) having an inlet socket (see fig 1, connection of 18 to L-shaped pipe) which forms part of the inlet (15) of the basin (10) and is inserted in a passage opening (see fig 1) penetrating at least a bottom wall (see fig 1, outer side wall) of the substructure (see fig 1, L-shaped pipe feeding each of the three 15), the inlet socket (see fig 1, connection of 18 to L-shaped pipe) having a perforation (see fig 1, hole in 18 connecting to L-shaped pipe) on at least a circumference of a portion of the inlet socket (see fig 1, connection of 18 to L-shaped pipe) protruding into the cavity (see fig 1, inside of pipe), the perforation (see fig 1, hole in 18 connecting to L-shaped pipe) being configured to introduce the solution into the cavity (see fig 1, hole in 18 connecting to L-shaped pipe) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 4, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin (10) has an outlet (16) disposed on a side of the basin (10), for draining the solution from the basin (10) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 5, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein each side wall (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the basin (10) has a perforation (see fig 1, hole in 10 connecting to 16) which is formed in an area (see fig 1) of an edge of the side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) and which forms the outlet (16) of the basin (10) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 6, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) comprises an additional basin (delineated by walls of 18), the basin (10) being inside into the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 7, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) has an outlet (see fig 1, bottom of 18 connecting to L-shaped pipe), which is disposed on the bottom of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18), for draining the solution from the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 8, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the inlet (15) of the basin (10) is provided for introducing the solution from an area (see fig 1) outside of the basin arrangement (see fig 1) into the basin (10), the outlet (16) of the basin (10) is provided for draining the solution from the basin (10) into the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) and the outlet (see fig 1, bottom of 18 connecting to L-shaped pipe) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) is provided for draining the solution from the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) to the area (see fig 1) outside of the basin arrangement (see fig 1) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 9, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin (10) is inside of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) such that the solution is introduced from the basin (10) into an area (see fig 1) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) limited at least by side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the basin (10) and side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18), through the outlet (16) of the basin (10) disposed on a side (see fig 1) of the basin (10), each side wall (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the basin (10) having a rim (perimeter bottom of 18) in an area (see fig 1) of an edge (boundary) of the side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the basin (10) which protrudes perpendicular (see fig 1) from the side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the basin (10) to a direction of the side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) and which connects the side walls (see fig 1, left & right sides) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) in such a manner that an opening (from 10 to 18) of the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) is covered horizontally (see fig 1) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 10, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) has at least one inlet for introducing the solution from an area outside (implicit of adding solution to 10 & 18 before processing) of the basin arrangement (see fig 1) into the additional basin (delineated by walls of 18) ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 11, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin (10) is configured such that a transport receptacle (20) having a plurality of objects (5) received therein is insertable into the basin (10) from above ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 12, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the depositing station comprises a manipulator (40) which is configured to insert the transport receptacle (20) into the basin (10) and remove the transport receptacle (20) from the basin (10) ([0044]-[0067]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 14, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) and/or the depositing station has a heating device (42) which is configured to heat the solution ([0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3).
As regards to claim 25, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) has a moving device (40) which is configured to vertically move the object (5) in the processing chamber (inside of 10) ([0044]-[0067]; fig 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
14. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parzefall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2016/0062372 A1) hereinafter Hayashi (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Hayashi are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 13, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), the basin arrangement (see fig 1) ([0029]; [0036]; [0044]-[0061]; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a filling level measuring device which is configured to measure a filling level.
Hayashi discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-2), comprising a filling level measuring device (55) which is configured to measure a filling level ([0022]; [0044]; [0058]; fig 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a filling level measuring device which is configured to measure a filling level in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Hayashi teaches the use of a filling level measuring device (55) which is configured to measure a filling level that detects the liquid level of the liquid sealed liquid, and a replenishment tank that replenishes the well-closed container with the liquid sealed liquid D from outside when the liquid level detected by the liquid level sensor (55) falls below a reference value ([0022]; [0044]; [0058]).
15. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parzefall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2003/0201166 A1) hereinafter Zheng (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Zheng are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 15, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) has an opening (12) ([0047]-[0061]; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a lid which covers an opening of the basin in a closed position of the lid.
Zheng discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1), wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) has a lid (101) which covers an opening of the basin (102) in a closed position of the lid (101) ([0009]; [0011]; [0018]-[0020]; [0032]; [0034]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a lid which covers an opening of the basin in a closed position of the lid in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Zheng teaches the use of wherein the basin arrangement (see fig 1) has a lid (101) which covers an opening of the basin (102) in a closed position of the lid (101) to selectively support a substrate in fluid contact with electrolyte in the electrolyte container ([0009]; [0011]; [0018]-[0020]; [0032]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, the recitation “being configured to guide condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid, into the basin when the lid is moved to an open position of the lid”, this recitation is a statement of process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use which does not patentably distinguish over the combination of Parzefall and Zheng since the combination of Parzefall and Zheng meets all the structural elements of the claim and is capable of guiding condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid, into the basin when the lid is moved to an open position of the lid, if so desired, and does not add structure to the claim. Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and intended use of a known apparatus does not give it patentable weight. See In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324, CCPA 979 135 F2d 344, 1943. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus shows all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is additionally noted that it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, the “inclusion of material or article worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 (USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Therefore, Examiner is disregarding any structural limitations to the apparatus based on process expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and the process intended to be used with the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 & 2115.
As regards to claim 16, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), the basin arrangement (see fig 1) and the basin (10) ([0047]-[0061]; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose wherein the lid is pivotable, the lid forming a guiding portion in an area of a pivot axis of the lid, the guiding portion being configured to guide condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid, into the basin when the lid is moved to an open position of the lid.
Zheng discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1), wherein the lid (101) is pivotable, the lid (101) forming a guiding portion (107) in an area of a pivot axis of the lid (101), the guiding portion (107) being configured to guide condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid (101), into the basin (102) when the lid (101) is moved to an open position of the lid (101) ([0009]; [0011]; [0018]-[0020]; [0032]; [0034]; fig 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the lid is pivotable, the lid forming a guiding portion in an area of a pivot axis of the lid, the guiding portion being configured to guide condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid, into the basin when the lid is moved to an open position of the lid in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Zheng teaches the use of wherein the lid (101) is pivotable, the lid (101) forming a guiding portion (107) in an area of a pivot axis of the lid (101), the guiding portion (107) being configured to guide condensate, which may have formed on an inner surface of the lid (101), into the basin (102) when the lid (101) is moved to an open position of the lid (101) to selectively support a substrate in fluid contact with electrolyte in the electrolyte container ([0009]; [0011]; [0018]-[0020]; [0032]; [0034]).
16. Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parzefall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota (US 2015/0267302 A1) hereinafter Kubota (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Kubota are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 17, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a tube assembly which integrates the depositing station into a fluid circuit.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a tube assembly (see fig 6-7, tubes 5+13+14+additional tubes all connecting to 1) which integrates the depositing station (1) into a fluid circuit (2) ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a tube assembly which integrates the depositing station into a fluid circuit in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a tube assembly (see fig 6-7, tubes 5+13+14+additional tubes all connecting to 1) which integrates the depositing station (1) into a fluid circuit (2) to be capable of switching a flow rate of the plating solution, flowing into the plating bath, between a first flow rate and a second flow rate that is lower than the first flow rate ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
As regards to claim 18, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a pumping device which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a pumping device (11+12) which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit (2) ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a pumping device which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a pumping device (11+12) which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit (2) to be capable of switching a flow rate of the plating solution, flowing into the plating bath, between a first flow rate and a second flow rate that is lower than the first flow rate ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
As regards to claim 19, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a filter device which is configured to clean the solution flowing in the fluid circuit.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a filter device (9) which is configured to clean the solution flowing in the fluid circuit (2) ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a filter device which is configured to clean the solution flowing in the fluid circuit in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a filter device (9) which is configured to clean the solution flowing in the fluid circuit (2) for removing unwanted materials from the plating solution ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
As regards to claim 20, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a volume flow device which is configured to measure and/or adjust a volumetric flow rate of the solution in the fluid circuit.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a volume flow device (8) which is configured to measure and/or adjust a volumetric flow rate of the solution in the fluid circuit (2) ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a volume flow device which is configured to measure and/or adjust a volumetric flow rate of the solution in the fluid circuit in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a volume flow device (8) which is configured to measure and/or adjust a volumetric flow rate of the solution in the fluid circuit (2) for measuring the flow rate of the plating solution ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
As regards to claim 21, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a valve arrangement.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a valve arrangement (15+16+17+18) which is capable of emptying a basin arrangement ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a valve arrangement which is capable of emptying a basin arrangement in the fluid circuit in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a valve arrangement (15+16+17+18) which is capable of emptying a basin arrangement to regulate the flow rate of the plating solution flowing in the delivery lines ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
17. Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parzefall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0247823 A1) hereinafter Huang (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Huang are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 22, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a sample-analysis device which is configured to take a sample of the solution, and to analyze a pH value of the sample.
Huang discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the depositing station (300) comprises a sample-analysis device (351) which is configured to take a sample of the solution, and to analyze a pH value of the sample ([0024]; [0026]; [0031]; [0034]; fig 2A). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a sample-analysis device which is configured to take a sample of the solution, and to analyze a pH value of the sample in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Huang teaches the use of a sample-analysis device (351) which is configured to take a sample of the solution, and to analyze a pH value of the sample for adjusting the concentration and the pH-value of the reaction liquid ([0024]; [0026]; [0031]; [0034]).
As regards to claim 23, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a cooling device.
Huang discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the depositing station (300) comprises a cooling device (352) ([0024]; [0026]; [0031]; [0034]; fig 2A). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cooling device in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Huang teaches the use of a cooling device (352) for adjusting and maintaining the temperature of the reaction liquid ([0024]; [0026]; [0031]; [0034]).
18. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parzefall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0247823 A1) hereinafter Huang and Kubota (US 2015/0267302 A1) hereinafter Kubota (the terminology of the claims in the application is used, but the references of Huang & Kubota are included between parentheses).
As regards to claim 24, Parzefall discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), however Parzefall does not disclose a dosing arrangement having at least one container for receiving a component contained in the solution and having at least one dosing pump which is assigned to the container, the dosing arrangement being configured to dose the component in the solution.
Huang discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 1-3), wherein the depositing station (300) comprises a dosing arrangement having at least one container for receiving a component (sulfuric acid) contained in the solution ([0031]; [0033]; fig 2A). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dosing arrangement having at least one container for receiving a component (sulfuric acid) contained in the solution in the depositing station of Parzefall, because Huang teaches the use of a dosing arrangement having at least one container for receiving a component (sulfuric acid) contained in the solution to adjust the pH-value of the reaction liquid to be between 1.5 and 2 ([0031]; [0033]), however the combination of Parzefall & Huang do not disclose at least one dosing pump which is assigned to the container, the dosing arrangement being configured to dose the component in the solution.
Kubota discloses a depositing station (abs; fig 6-7), comprising a dosing pumping device (11+12) which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit (2) and to dose the component in the solution ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]; fig 6-7). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one dosing pump which is assigned to the container, the dosing arrangement being configured to dose the component in the solution in the depositing station of modified Parzefall, because Kubota teaches the use of a dosing pumping device (11+12) which is configured to circulate the solution in the fluid circuit (2) and to dose the component in the solution to be capable of switching a flow rate of the plating solution & component, flowing into the plating bath, between a first flow rate and a second flow rate that is lower than the first flow rate ([0039]-[0044]; [0060]-[0065]).
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: all references cited on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited excluding the above relied upon references.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jethro M Pence whose telephone number is (571)270-7423. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M..
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, Dah-Wei D. Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/Jethro M. Pence/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights