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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanakarajan et al. (US 2005/0100719) (Kanakarajan) in view of Lee (US 2018/0235072) and Carney et al. (US 2011/0287243) (Carney).
In reference to claims 1 and 9, Kanakarajan teaches a multi-layer substrate ([0001]) (corresponding to a composite substrate). The multi-layer substrate includes a conductive layer (12), a polyimide layer having a low lamination temperature (12) and a polyimide layer having a high lamination temperature (13) ([0006]). The conductive layer is a metal layer ([0090]). The high lamination temperature polyimide (13) is used as an adhesive ([0104]). The low lamination temperature polyimide (12) provides electrical and thermal insulation ([0075]).
FIG. 6, provided below, shows the multi-layer substrate consists of a first conductive layer (i.e., first metal layer), a first low Tg polyimide layer (i.e., first insulating layer), a first high Tg polyimide (i.e., first bonding layer), a second low Tg polyimide layer (i.e., second insulating layer), a second conductive layer (i.e., second metal layer), a third low Tg polyimide layer (i.e., third insulating layer), a second high Tg polyimide (i.e., second bonding layer), a fourth low Tg polyimide layer (i.e., fourth insulating layer) and a third conductive layer (i.e., third metal layer).
Kanakarajan does not explicitly teach (1) the first and second low Tg polyimide based polymer (i.e., first and second insulating layers) include a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyester, polyurethane and combinations thereof or (2) the high Tg polyimide layers (i.e., bonding layers) are butyral phenolic resin, as presently claimed. However, Kanakarajan teaches all or part of the low Tg polyimide based polymer can be replaced with a different polymer depending upon the particular end-use application and provided the different polymer has a low temperature (<200ºC) softening point ([0106]). Further, Kanakarajan teaches and all of the high Tg polyimide base polymer can be replaced with a different polymer ([0105]).
With respect to (1), Lee teaches a multilayer composite substrate ([0004]). The composite substrate comprises and insulating structure including a polymer layer ([0039]). The polymer layer may have good flexibility such that the composite substrate including the polymer layer may be flexible. The materials constituting the polymer layer are selected from the group consisting of polyimide, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, ABS plastic, polyester and poly(ethylene terephthalate) ([0040]) (corresponding to a material of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer is selected from the group consisting of Polyethylene Terephthalate, Polystyrene, Polyvinyl Chloride, Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene, Polyester and combinations thereof).
In light of the disclosure of Lee of the equivalence and interchangeability of using polyimides as disclosed in Kanakarajan, with polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, ABS plastic, polyester and poly(ethylene terephthalate) as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, ABS plastic, polyester and poly(ethylene terephthalate) as the base polymer for the low Tg layers, in order to provide a polymer based layer having good flexibility such that the multilayer substrate has flexibility.
Carney teaches a multilayer film for electronic circuitry applications (Abstract; [0001]). The multilayer film includes an adhesive layer ([0018]). The adhesive layer is selected from epoxy adhesives, polyimide, butyral phenolic and polyacrylic acids ([0153]; [0163]; [0164]).
In light of the disclosure of Carney of the equivalence and interchangeability of using polyimides as disclosed in Kanakarajan, with butyral phenolic resins as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use butyral phenolic resin as the base polymer for the high Tg layer, in order to provide an adhesive that will bond the layers in the multi-layer substrate.
Given that the high Tg adhesive layers of Kanakarajan in view of Carney is substantially identical to the presently claimed first bonding layer and second bonding layer in structure and formed of the same material, it is clear that the adhesive layer of Lee in view of Carney would intrinsically have a dielectric constant lower than 2.0, a dissipation factor of lower than 0.005, a coefficient of water absorption lower than 0.5% at a temperature of 25ºC within 24 hours and a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than 50 µm/m/ºC.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (MPEP 2112.01).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
1143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Kanakarajan in view of Lee and Carney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kanakarajan further teaches the conductive layer is a metal layer, wherein the metal is of copper, zinc, chrome, tin, nickel, cobalt, and alloys thereof ([0090]-[0091]) (corresponding to a material of the first metal layer and the second metal layer is selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, Au, Ag, Sn, Pb, Sn-Pb alloy, Fe, Pd, Ni, Cr, Mo, W, Zn, Mn, Co, stainless steel and combinations thereof).
In reference to claims 3 and 4, Kanakarajan in view of Lee and Carney teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kanakarajan further teaches a circuit pattern is formed on the conductive layer ([0079]) (corresponding to at least one of the first metal layer and the second metal layer is a patterned metal layer; a surface of the patterned metal layer includes a circuit structure).
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires a material of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyester, polyurethane and combinations thereof, it is noted that Kanakarajan, Suzuki and Casey, alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejection over Kanakarajan in view of Suzuki and Carney are withdrawn from record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights