DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 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
The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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.
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(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima et al. (JP 2004-339579) in view of Sakaki (US 2003/0153185).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 10, Mishima discloses an electrolytic processing apparatus (page 1) (= an electrolytic cell) comprising:
An electrolytic processing unit (60) including a diaphragm (70) fixed to a housing (74) configured to flow plating solution (pages 17-18) (= an electrochemical reactor including an electrically conductive sieve fixed mounted within a chamber and configured to direct jets of electrolyte toward a workpiece), the diaphragm is rotated as needed (page 18) (= that is configured to rotate within the chamber, such that the electrically conductive sieve manipulates flow paths of the electrolyte but not an electric field in the chamber). The diaphragm of Mishima includes a water-permeable material such as a woven or nonwoven fabric or a plate having pores. Mishima is silent as to the specific material of the diaphragm therefore one or ordinary skill in the art would look to the related art for materials of diaphragms.
In the same or similar field, Sakaki discloses a plating apparatus comprising a diaphragm (70) permitting energization between electrodes through the plating solution and is made of woven fabrics of polypropylene filaments, ion exchange membranes including fluoroplastics-containing ion exchange membranes or non-woven fabrics [0065].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the diaphragm of Mishima as an ion exchange membrane since Sakaki discloses wherein a plating device comprises a diaphragm that is formed of woven fabric or as an ion exchange membrane. According to Applicant’s instant specification and claim 2, a perforated ionic membrane reads on the claimed electrically conductive sieve [0025]-[0026]. The diaphragm would necessarily manipulate the flow path of the electrolyte but not an electric field in the chamber since the diaphragm is the same as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mishima discloses wherein the diaphragm is arranged parallel to and spaced away from the workpiece (W) (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, given the circular semiconductor wafer processing device of Mishima, the diaphragm is necessarily disk shaped. Sakaki discloses a cylindrical shape of the plating tank [0025].
Regarding claim 16, Mishima discloses the diaphragm mounted in a plating unit (60) (Figure 2).
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima et al. (JP 2004-339579), in view of Sakaki (US 2003/0153185) and in further view of Otzlinger et al. (US 2023/0313407).
Regarding claims 3-4, 11-12 and 17-18, Mishima and Sakaki fail to disclose wherein the perforations of the perforated membrane are different sizes or shapes.
In the same or similar field of an electrolytic apparatus, Otzlinger discloses a deposition chamber [0010] comprising a shield body (2) which is mounted in a chamber to direct process fluid flow through openings (2a). Otzlinger discloses wherein the openings comprise different sizes and shapes [0013]. Otzlinger discloses wherein the number, position, size and shape of the openings are selected based to correspond to the surface elements of the substrate [0014].
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 diaphragm or membrane comprising openings with different sizes and shapes openings because Otzlinger discloses that the size and shape of openings are selected based on the substrate being treated.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima et al. (JP 2004-339579), in view of Sakaki (US 2003/0153185) and in further view of Dinneen et al. (US 2015/0122638).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 14-15, Mishima in view of Sakaki fails to disclose a support for the diaphragm between the diaphragm as claimed.
In the same or similar field, Dinneen discloses an electroplating cell (200) (title) [0056] (= an electrolytic cell) comprising a chamber (= an electrochemical reactor including a housing defining a chamber) and a membrane (247) [0056], [0102] mounted with chamber frame (249) [0056] configured to flow plating solution [0056] toward a wafer (not pictured) which is configured to rotate [0133], [0137]. Dinneen discloses chamber frame (249) (= support grate, Figures 2A-2B) which supports the membrane. Dinneen appears to depict the chamber frame (29) above the membrane (247) and the cathode chamber which would include the substrate above the frame (Figure 2B).
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 cell comprising a support because Dinneen discloses that objects within a chamber may be supported by a frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered. The remarks on pages 5-6 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection which are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
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