DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/28/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
Claims 1-7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luce et al. (U.S. Patent 3,293,109) optionally in view of Deltombe et al. (“How to select the most relevant 3D roughness parameters of a surface”) and/or Akitoshi et al. (WO 2021/157363 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 10, and 14, Luce discloses a method for manufacturing a laminate, comprising: providing a copper foil (10/20) having a treated surface (16/21) on at least one side (and regarding claim 7) wherein the treated surface comprises a plurality of roughening particles (22 of copper-copper oxide) of a nodularized appearance, and attaching or forming a resin film (12) of any resinous material/substrate currently used in the printed circuit art such as polyvinyl butyral (see Column 2, line 72 to Column 3, line 7 wherein poly(phenol-formaldehyde, vinyl butyral) is interpreted as disclosing each of poly(vinyl butyral) resin or a mixed poly(phenol-formaldehyde)-(vinyl butyral) resin and in each case regarding claim 10 wherein the polyvinyl acetal resin is a polyvinyl butyral resin) on the treated surface of the copper foil to obtain a laminate (regarding claim 14) wherein a peel strength between the copper foil and the conventional resinous materials/substrates is 15 to 25 pounds per inch (2.68 to 4.47 kgf/cm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method for manufacturing a laminate taught by Luce comprises providing the copper foil (10/20) having a treated surface (16/21) comprising a plurality of roughening particles (22 of copper-copper oxide) of a nodularized appearance, and attaching or forming a polyvinyl butyral resin film (12) on the treated surface of the copper foil to obtain a laminate wherein a peel strength between the copper foil and the polyvinyl butyral resin film is 0.60 kgf/cm or more and 3.0 kgf/cm or less (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists see MPEP 2144.05) as is the express direction in Luce to predictably manufacture the laminate (see Figures 2 and 3 and Column 1, lines 10-14 and 28-30 and 42-57 and Column 2, lines 29-35 and Column 2, line 72 to Column 3, line 56 and Column 5, lines 17-22 and Column 6, lines 37-47 and 66-67).
As to the limitations in claim 1 of the “treated surface having a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side” and “wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm” and in claims 2-6, Luce teaches the treated surface comprises a plurality of roughening particles of a nodularized appearance wherein such a surface necessarily has a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr, a root mean square height Sq, and a density of peaks Spd. Luce does not expressly measure the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values. The Office is unequipped to measure such values, i.e. wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed. However, as shown in the instant specification when all three of the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values satisfy the claimed ranges (see Examples 1-4) a peel strength of greater than 0.6 kgf/cm is achieved (see Table 1 and Paragraph 0033 “The peel strength between the copper foil and the resin film in the laminate is preferably 0.60 kgf/cm or more, more preferably 1.00 kgf/cm or more, and further preferably 1.20 kgf/cm or more when the circuit height is 12 µm and the circuit width is 3 mm. It is better that the peel strength is high. Its upper limit value is not particularly limited but is typically 3.0 kgf/cm or less.”) as compared to when one or more and including all three of the values do not satisfy the claimed ranges (see Comparative Examples 5-7) the peel strength is not achieved. Because Luce teaches a peel strength of 2.68 to 4.47 kgf/cm (15 to 25 pounds per inch) the evidence of record suggests the treated surface taught by Luce necessarily has as the developed interfacial area ratio Sdr a value of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and as the root mean square height Sq a value of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm including wherein the Sdr is 2.50% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.050 µm or more and 0.180 µm or less and wherein the Sdr is 5.00% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.100 µm or more and 0.140 µm or less and further the treated surface has as the density of peaks Spd a value of 100 mm-2 or more and 26000 mm-2 or less, and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed including wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 20000 mm-2 or less and wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 15000 mm-2 or less.
Alternatively, as to the limitations in claim 1 of the “treated surface having a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side” and “wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm” and in claims 2-6, as noted above Luce does not expressly measure the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values. Luce teaches the surface roughness obtained by the treatment process not only is the exposed surface area greatly increased, improving adhesion to the polyvinyl butyral, but also because of the knobbed structure, the mechanical aspects of adhesion are also enhanced wherein the duration of the process is a critical factor in achieving sufficient bond strength without the layer becoming too thick to be “cemented” to the surface (Column 2, lines 29-35 and Column 3, lines 14-22 and Column 5, lines 17-22 and Column 6, lines 37-38). It is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of characterization of surface roughness to influence adhesion comprehensive roughness analysis is of many parameters defined by ISO 25178 including Sdr, Sq, and Spd as evidenced by Deltombe (see 1 INTRODUCTION, 2.3 Step 2. The multiscale decomposition, and Table 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surface roughness treatment of the plurality of roughening particles to the surface of the copper foil as taught by Luce is determined as directed by Luce such as in duration to achieve sufficient bond strength such as 15 to 25 pounds per inch without the layer too thick to be “cemented” to the surface and including so that the exposed surface area is greatly increased, improving adhesion, but also because of the knobbed structure, the mechanical aspects of adhesion are also enhanced such as the treated surface has a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on a least one side, and wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm including wherein the Sdr is 2.50% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.050 µm or more and 0.180 µm or less and wherein the Sdr is 5.00% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.100 µm or more and 0.140 µm or less and wherein the treated surface has a density of peaks Spd of 100 mm-2 or more and 26000 mm-2 or less, and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed including wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 20000 mm-2 or less and wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 15000 mm-2 or less wherein Luce achieves the same peel strength as in the instant invention and Luce does not teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05 and “II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION” AND “III. REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OBVOIUSNESS”) and optionally further in view of Deltombe wherein parameters related to surface roughness include Sdr, Sq, and Spd and are well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as result-effective variables to influence adhesion and/or Akitoshi evidencing Sdr of 0.50-7.00% and Spd of 20,000 mm-2 or more are conventional and predictable values to achieve high adhesion (Abstract and Pages 3-5 of the machine translation).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isoue et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0023620) in view of Luce and optionally further Deltombe and/or Akitoshi.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-13, Isoue discloses a method for manufacturing a laminate, comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): providing a copper foil (paragraph 0128) having a treated surface on at least one side (surface was roughened see paragraph 0133), and attaching or forming a polyvinyl acetal resin film (and regarding claim 9 wherein the resin film has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 1000 µm or less and regarding claim 10 wherein the polyvinyl acetal resin is a polyvinyl butyral resin see paragraphs 0064 and 0070) on the treated surface of the copper foil to form a laminate (regarding claim 8) wherein attachment of the resin film to the copper foil is performed by thermocompression-bonding the resin film and the copper foil at a temperature of 180°C or less (see paragraphs 0145 and 0149) and a pressure of 0.6 MPa or less (e.g. 0.2 MPa and see Example 7) and then (regarding claim 11) providing the laminate for manufacturing a heating element, processing (by etching see paragraph 0152) the copper foil of the laminate to form a heating wire having a predetermined pattern (and regarding claim 12 wherein the predetermined pattern comprises for example a grid-like or net-like shape considered at least one pattern of a linear shape and/or a lattice shape and/or a net shape or a wavy line shape see paragraph 0124), and attaching or forming an additional polyvinyl acetal resin film on the laminate in which the heating wire is formed, so as to sandwich the heating wire (as a protective film see paragraphs 0122 and 0153 or to form a laminated glass see paragraph 0263), to form a heating element and (regarding claim 13) form a defroster (see paragraphs 0002, 0196, and 0197) comprising a heating element manufactured by the method.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Isoue does not expressly teach or require any particular surface roughening technique. It is known to improve the adhesion of a copper foil surface (16/21) to polyvinyl butyral (12) such as to a peel strength of 15 to 25 pounds per inch to apply a plurality of roughening particles (22 of copper-copper oxide) to the surface as taught by Luce (Column 1, lines 10-17 and line 44 and Column 2, lines 29-35 and Column 3, lines 5-6 and Column 5, lines 17-22 and Column 6, lines 37-47 and 66-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the treated surface taught by Isoue comprises a plurality of roughening particles to roughen the surface and improve the adhesion of the copper foil to the polyvinyl butyral resin film including wherein a peel strength between the copper foil and the polyvinyl butyral resin film in the laminate is 0.60 kgf/cm or more and 3.0 kgf/cm or less (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists see MPEP 2144.05) as taught by Luce.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of the “treated surface having a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side” and “wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm” and in claims 2-6, as noted above Luce teaches the treated surface comprises a plurality of roughening particles of a nodularized appearance wherein such a surface necessarily has a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr, a root mean square height Sq, and a density of peaks Spd. Luce does not expressly measure the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values. The Office is unequipped to measure such values, i.e. wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed. However, as shown in the instant specification when all three of the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values satisfy the claimed ranges (see Examples 1-4) a peel strength of greater than 0.6 kgf/cm is achieved (see Table 1 and Paragraph 0033 “The peel strength between the copper foil and the resin film in the laminate is preferably 0.60 kgf/cm or more, more preferably 1.00 kgf/cm or more, and further preferably 1.20 kgf/cm or more when the circuit height is 12 µm and the circuit width is 3 mm. It is better that the peel strength is high. Its upper limit value is not particularly limited but is typically 3.0 kgf/cm or less.”) as compared to when one or more and including all three of the values do not satisfy the claimed ranges (see Comparative Examples 5-7) the peel strength is not achieved. Because Isoue as modified by Luce teaches a peel strength of 2.68 to 4.47 kgf/cm (15 to 25 pounds per inch) the evidence of record suggests the treated surface taught by Isoue as modified by Luce necessarily has as the developed interfacial area ratio Sdr a value of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and as the root mean square height Sq a value of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm including wherein the Sdr is 2.50% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.050 µm or more and 0.180 µm or less and wherein the Sdr is 5.00% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.100 µm or more and 0.140 µm or less and further the treated surface has as the density of peaks Spd a value of 100 mm-2 or more and 26000 mm-2 or less, and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions is which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed including wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 20000 mm-2 or less and wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 15000 mm-2 or less.
Alternatively, as to the limitations in claim 1 of the “treated surface having a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less on at least one side” and “wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm” and in claims 2-6, as noted above Luce does not expressly measure the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values. Luce teaches the surface roughness obtained by the treatment process not only is the exposed surface area greatly increased, improving adhesion to the polyvinyl butyral, but also because of the knobbed structure, the mechanical aspects of adhesion are also enhanced wherein the duration of the process is a critical factor in achieving sufficient bond strength without the layer becoming too thick to be “cemented” to the surface (Column 2, lines 29-35 and Column 3, lines 14-22 and Column 5, lines 17-22 and Column 6, lines 37-38). It is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of characterization of surface roughness to influence adhesion comprehensive roughness analysis is of many parameters defined by ISO 25178 including Sdr, Sq, and Spd as evidenced by Deltombe (see 1 INTRODUCTION, 2.3 Step 2. The multiscale decomposition, and Table 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surface roughness treatment of the plurality of roughening particles to the surface of the copper foil as taught by Isoue as modified by Luce is determined as directed by Luce such as in duration to achieve sufficient bond strength such as 15 to 25 pounds per inch without the layer too thick to be “cemented” to the surface and including so that the exposed surface area is greatly increased, improving adhesion, but also because of the knobbed structure, the mechanical aspects of adhesion are also enhanced such as the treated surface has a developed interfacial area ratio Sdr of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and a root mean square height Sq of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less, and wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm including wherein the Sdr is 2.50% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.050 µm or more and 0.180 µm or less and wherein the Sdr is 5.00% or more and 9.00% or less, and the Sq is 0.100 µm or more and 0.140 µm or less and wherein the treated surface has a density of peaks Spd of 100 mm-2 or more and 26000 mm-2 or less, and wherein the Spd is a value measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 2 µm, and cutoff of an L-filter is not performed including wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 20000 mm-2 or less and wherein the Spd is 10000 mm-2 or more and 15000 mm-2 or less wherein Isoue as modified by Luce achieves the same peel strength as in the instant invention and neither Isoue nor Luce teach away from the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05 and “II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION” AND “III. REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OBVOIUSNESS”) and optionally further in view of Deltombe wherein variables related to surface roughness include Sdr, Sq, and Spd and are well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as result-effective variables to influence adhesion and/or Akitoshi evidencing Sdr of 0.50-7.00% and Spd of 20,000 mm-2 or more are conventional and predictable values to achieve high adhesion (Abstract and Pages 3-5 of the machine translation).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luce and optionally Deltombe and/or Akitoshi as applied to claims 1-7, 10, and 14 above, and further in view of Isoue.
Luce as optionally modified by Deltombe and/or Akitoshi above teach all of the limitations in claims 8 and 9 except for a specific teaching of the thermocompression-bonding conditions (Luce teaches attachment of the resin film to the copper foil is performed by thermocompression-bonding the resin film and the copper foil see Column 2, lines 61-65) and thickness of the resin film (Luce is not limited to any particular thickness). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the thermocompression-bonding taught by Luce as optionally modified by Deltombe and/or Akitoshi is at a temperature of 180°C or less and a pressure of 0.6 MPa or less as are conventional and predictable conditions for the bonding as evidenced by Isoue (described above in full detail) and further including the resin film has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 1000 µm or less as is conventional and predictable thickness for attachment to copper foil as also evidenced by Isoue (described above in full detail).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/277,681 and Application No. 18/277,673 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the terminal disclaimer filed 1/28/2026 the double patenting rejections set forth in the Office action mailed 9/30/2025 are withdrawn.
Applicants argue, “That is, Luce teaches that: (i) the peel strength between a copper foil and an epoxy-glass cloth laminate was 16-18 pounds/inch (2.86-3.21 kgf/cm); (ii) a similar peel strength was obtained when copper foil was laminated onto a phenolic paper substrate using a conventional printed- circuit adhesive; and (iii) the peel strength was 8 pounds/inch (1.43 kgf/cm) when copper foil was laminated directly onto a phenolic paper substrate. Thus, the peel strength described in Luce is measured in the context of laminating thermosetting resin substrates to copper foil and reflects peel strength at the copper foil-resin interface under those conditions.” and “Additionally, Luce further discloses the use of high-dielectric resin materials such as poly(phenol, aldehyde, vinyl butyral), and also discloses that adhesives such as poly(vinyl butyral)-(phenol-formaldehyde) may be used (Luce, col. 3, lines 4-7 and 35-37). However, these are composite materials in which vinyl butyral resin is incorporated into a phenolic resin (i.e., a thermosetting resin), and therefore such materials undergo curing upon heating. These materials are clearly different from the polyvinyl acetal resin (i.e., a thermoplastic resin) specified in the claimed invention.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Luce does not require thermosetting resin and thermoplastic resin in a mixture teaching “The resinous substrate 12 may be any resinous material currently used in the printed circuit art” including poly(vinyl butyral) (Column 2, line 71 to Column 3, line 7). Luce teaches a separate adhesive layer embodiment (this embodiment not relied upon in the rejection) may include a mixed poly(vinyl butyral)-(phenol formaldehyde) (Column 3, lines 35-37). However, in the alternative adhesive layer embodiment Luce does not require the thermoplastic polymer and the thermosetting polymer in the adhesive are mixed rather mixtures is an alternative to the thermoplastic polymer or the thermosetting polymer (see Column 3, lines 23-29 “As indicated above, conventional adhesives may be used to bond copper sheets to a resinous substrate, and improved adhesion due to coaction between the adhesive and the electro-deposited surface will be found. For electrical purposes, high dielectric strength adhesives are selected. Among these are the various thermosetting and thermoplastic polymers and copolymers, and mixtures thereof.”) and therefore is further consistent with the interpretation poly(phenol-formaldehyde, vinyl butyral) is a teaching of each of poly(vinyl butyral) resin or a mixed poly(phenol-formaldehyde)-(vinyl butyral) resin may be used as the resinous substrate. It is further noted none of the claims preclude the polyvinyl resin film from including other polymers such as poly(phenol-formaldehyde), and none of the claims require thermoplastic resin and/or the polyvinyl acetal resin film consist of polyvinyl acetal resin. As shown in the instant specification when all three of the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values satisfy the claimed ranges (see Examples 1-4) a peel strength of greater than 0.6 kgf/cm is achieved as compared to when one or more and including all three of the values do not satisfy the claimed ranges (see Comparative Examples 5-7) the peel strength is not achieved. There is no showing of record that the Sdr, Sq, and Spd values are a function of the resin of the resin film (it being noted the resin film of the examples is a commercially available polyvinyl butyral resin film in which dihexyladipic acid was blended as a plasticizer) as is consistent with Luce teaching treating the copper foil as disclosed obtains a peel strength between the treated copper foil and conventional resinous substrates (not limited to epoxy or phenolic resins) in the laminate is 15 pounds to 25 pounds per inch (Column 3, lines 19-22). Thus, because Luce teaches a peel strength between the treated surface of the copper foil and the conventional resinous film including polyvinyl butyral resin film in the laminate is 2.68 to 4.47 kgf/cm (15 to 25 pounds per inch) (i.e. such is providing a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art) the evidence of record suggests (see further MPEP 2112) the treated surface taught by Luce necessarily has (i.e. the limitation at issue is necessarily present or is the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by Luce) as the developed interfacial area ratio Sdr a value of 0.50% or more and 9.00% or less and as the root mean square height Sq a value of 0.010 µm or more and 0.200 µm or less wherein the Sdr and Sq are values measured in accordance with ISO 25178 under conditions in which a cutoff wavelength of an S-filter is 0.55 µm, and a cutoff wavelength of an L-filter is 10 µm.
Applicants further argue, “For example, Deltombe and Akitoshi provide, at best, a general discussion regarding surface-roughness evaluation of copper foil, and neither teaches nor suggests that simultaneously controlling multiple ISO 25178 surface parameters (i.e., Sdr and Sq) within the claimed narrow ranges would improve adhesion to a polyvinyl acetal thermoplastic resin film. Instead, the applied references do not provide any motivation to adopt the claimed multi-parameter control or any reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Deltombe evidences that well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of characterization of surface roughness to influence adhesion comprehensive roughness analysis is of many parameters defined by ISO 25178 including Sdr, Sq, and Spd (i.e. parameters related to surface roughness include Sdr, Sq, and Spd and are well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as result-effective variables to influence adhesion see further MPEP 2144.05 and “II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION” AND “III. REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OBVOIUSNESS”) and Akitoshi explicitly evidencing Sdr of 0.50-7.00% and Spd of 20,000 mm-2 or more are conventional and predictable values to achieve high adhesion.
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 JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights