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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 118 820.2, filed on 07/21/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/11/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The references lined through are in not in English and lack English translation therefore are not legible.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “at least 0.1 - 500 mg/l”, which is indefinite because it is not clear if the amount is limited to the recited range or it may be a range larger due to the phrase “at least”. For the purpose of further examination, the limitation will be interested as requiring the recited range. Furthermore, it is not clear if the statement in parenthesis is optional. For the purpose of further examination, the statement in the parenthesis will be regarded as required.
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(s) 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al. (US 20210254230 A1) in view of Romer et al. (US 20130256145 A1).
Considering claims 1 and 2, Stadler discloses an aqueous silver electrolyte for the galvanic deposition of silver layers on conductive substrates, comprising: a) at least one soluble silver compound [0038]; b) free cyanide in an amount of at least 140 g/L [0041], which overlaps the claimed range of 20 - 200 g/l; c) at least one luster additive (grain refiner) in an amount of 0.2-8 g/L [0044], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 - 10 g/l; d) at least one wetting agent (dispersant) in an amount of 1-10 g/L [0020], which overlaps the claimed range 0.1 - 15 ml/l assuming density of about 1g/ml; e) at least one solid component in an amount of 1 to 150 g/L [0020], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 - 200 g/l.
Stadler does not disclose the electrolyte additionally has at least one defoamer in an amount of 0.2 - 20 g/l.
However, Romer teaches polyethylene glycols and their derivatives may be employed with the other brighteners, as the amount of 50 mg to 5 g/L [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a polyethylene glycol as an additional brightener in the bath of Stadler, because Romer teaches that when lustrous surfaces are desired, brighteners may be employed together with other brighteners. The claimed defoamer is a polyalkane glycol, therefore the brightener of Romer will inherently have the same property as the claimed defoamer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 4, Stadler discloses the luster additive (grain refiner) is arylsulfonic acid (naphthalene sulphonic acid) [0043].
Considering claims 5, Stadler discloses the solid component is graphite [0052].
Considering claims 6, Stadler discloses the wetting agent is selected from the group of alkyl sulfates [0045].
Considering claims 8, Stadler discloses a method of the galvanic deposition of silver layers on conductive substrates wherein a current flow is established between an anode in contact with the electrolyte, and the substrate as the cathode (inherently) [0071].
Considering claims 9, Stadler discloses the temperature of the electrolyte is in the range of 1°C to 50 °C [0070], which overlaps the claimed range of 20 °C - 90 °C.
Considering claims 10, Stadler discloses the current density during electrolysis is between 0.05 to A/dm2 [0071], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 - 100 A/dm2.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al. (US 20210254230 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 20210381121 A1) and Liu et al. (Langmuir 2019, 35, 11784−11790).
Considering claims 1-3, Stadler discloses an aqueous silver electrolyte for the galvanic deposition of silver layers on conductive substrates, comprising: a) at least one soluble silver compound [0038]; b) free cyanide in an amount of at least 140 g/L [0041], which overlaps the claimed range of 20 - 200 g/l; c) at least one luster additive (grain refiner) in an amount of 0.2-8 g/L [0044], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 - 10 g/l; d) at least one wetting agent (dispersant) in an amount of 1-10 g/L [0020], which overlaps the claimed range 0.1 - 15 ml/l assuming density of about 1g/ml; e) at least one solid component in an amount of 1 to 150 g/L [0020], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 - 200 g/l.
Stadler does not disclose the electrolyte additionally has at least one defoamer in an amount of 0.2 - 20 g/l.
However, Xu teaches electroplating composition comprising one or more antifoam agents, brighteners, surfactants, grain refiners, etc. [0078], where a preferred low foaming surfactant is for example UCON 50-HB-100 [0079], at an exemplary amount of 7.70 ml/L [0102] (about 7.7 g/L for density of 1 g/ml). Xu further teaches that polyalkylene glycol can be introduced to inhibit the formation or occurrence of small diameter pits in the plated deposit [0078]. Liu further teaches that the molecular weight of UCON 50-HB-100 is 520 g/mol (Supporting Information, page S3, Table S1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a low foaming surfactant in the electroplating bath of Stadler, because Xu teaches a low foaming surfactant CON 50-HB-100 can be added, and the introduction of polyalkylene glycol can be introduced to inhibit the formation or occurrence of small diameter pits in the plated deposit. Liu further teaches that the molecular weight of UCON 50-HB-100 is 520 g/mol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recited range because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 4, Stadler discloses the luster additive (grain refiner) is arylsulfonic acid (naphthalene sulphonic acid) [0043].
Considering claims 5, Stadler discloses the solid component is graphite [0052].
Considering claims 6, Stadler discloses the wetting agent is selected from the group of alkyl sulfates [0045].
Considering claims 8, Stadler discloses a method of the galvanic deposition of silver layers on conductive substrates wherein a current flow is established between an anode in contact with the electrolyte, and the substrate as the cathode (inherently) [0071].
Considering claims 9, Stadler discloses the temperature of the electrolyte is in the range of 1°C to 50 °C [0070], which overlaps the claimed range of 20 °C - 90 °C.
Considering claims 10, Stadler discloses the current density during electrolysis is between 0.05 to A/dm2 [0071], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 - 100 A/dm2.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al. and Romer et al, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Weyhmueller (US 20210324497 A1).
Considering claims 7, Stadler does not disclose 0.1 - 500 mg/l of a salt of a Se- or Te anion.
However, Weyhmueller discloses 0.05 to 80 mmol/l of telluride in a form a tellurate [0032] used for alloying with silver in silver alloy coatings (abstract). AU of tellurium is 128, therefore the concentration of tellurium is 6.4 mg/l to 10 g/l.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add desirable amount of tellurium anion salt in order to form an alloy of silver and tellurium at desired content of tellurium in the bath of Stadler, because Weyhmueller teaches that in order to form an alloy of silver and tellurium one would add 6.4 mg/l to 10 g/l of tellurate.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler et al. and Romer et al, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ogihara et al. (US 7402232 B2).
Considering claims 11, Stadler is silent about pH value.
However, Ogihara teaches pH of a silver electroplating cyanide solution is stable at 8 to 9 (col. 7, lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pH of the electroplating bath of Stadler maintained at pH of 8-9, because Stadler is silent about the pH and Ogihara teaches pH of a silver electroplating cyanide solution is stable at 8 to 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights