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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okuyama et al. (WO 2022/163065) (See US 2024/0096774).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Okuyama discloses a multilayer body, i.e. an electronic body, comprising a metal layer 24 (0010, 0065) and a resin layer 32, i.e. an organic material, bonded together (0065) by silane coupling agent layer 26, i.e. an interface between the surface of the metal structure and the organic material including a monolayer coating, (0062) wherein the silane composition is N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (0066). Given that Okuyama discloses the same silane composition as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the monolayer coating of Okuyama would inherently have the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Alternatively, While there is no disclosure that the multilayer body is an electronic body as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. an electronic body, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art Okuyama and further that the prior art structure which is a multilayer body identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claim 6, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the metal is copper or gold (0062).
Regarding claim 7, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the organic material is polyimide, i.e. a polymer, (0019).
Regarding claim 8, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the device is a printed circuit board (0002).
Regarding claim 9, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the metal structure is an interconnect structure of the device (0002-0003, 0010, 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 10, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 wherein the interconnect structure is an interconnect line or plated through hole (0033-0034).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. (WO 2022/163065).
Regarding claims 2-3, Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Okuyama discloses that the silane layer is only required to cover the entire surface of the metal layer (0073), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any thickness of silane layer including that presently claimed to cover the entire surface of the metal layer as taught in Okuyama.
Claim(s) 2 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. (WO 2022/163065) in view of Chen (WO 2017/107587).
Regarding claims 2 and 11-14. Okuyama discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose Bis(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)amine as a silane coupling agent.
Chen discloses a metal foil laminated board (0001) comprising silane coupling agent such as bis(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)amine or bis(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) ethylenediamine (0025) to obtain stronger binding force, improved peel strength, interlayer adhesion and mechanical properties (0022).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific silane coupling agent of Chen in the silane coupling agent layer of Okuyama to obtain stronger binding force, improved peel strength, interlayer adhesion and mechanical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Okuyama does not describe a monolayer coating of a silane composition. However, it is noted that Okuyama does not disclose silane coupling layer being a plurality of layers and therefore it is clear that silane coupling agent of Okuyama is a monolayer.
Applicant argues that Okuyama discloses that the silane coupling agent can be applied using a silane coupling agent solution which would naturally result in a coating much thicker than a mono layer. However, it is noted that there is nothing in the claim that limits the mono layer thickness. Further, note that mono layer limitation itself does not limit the layer thickness.
Applicant argues that Okuyama is silent as to exposure time control or the reaction rate of the substrate. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., exposure time control or the reaction rate of the substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787