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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. Claim 2 has been canceled by the Applicant. All previous prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims. New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument of unexpected results on pp. 5-6 rendering claim 1 and its dependents 3-10 nonobvious, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the experimental data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claim. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Specifically, the experimental data shown in Table 1 of the specification compares a 0 g/L concentration of coordination compound to a 1.0 g/L concentration, while the claim is directed to the coordination compound in a range of 0.1 g/L to 10 g/L. The showing of unexpected results from the lack of the coordination compound compared to its presence at 1.0 g/L is outside of the scope of the claim.
Consequently, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
While claim 1 sets forth an electrolyte solution to be used in the electrolytic process (see claim 1 at lines 5-8), claim 4 further defines the electrolytic process to further include a first electrolytic process and a second electrolytic process (see claim 4 at lines 2-3) wherein the concentration of the copper ions used in the first and the second electrolytic processes has the relationship as set forth (see claim 4 at lines 3-5). In terms of claim interpretation, it is specifically noted that these two electrolytic process steps are understood to occur in sequence due to the language of “first” and “second,” but are not being treated as precluding any additional steps before, after, or in-between. Furthermore, it is noted that as it relates to the electrolytic process of claim 1 and the associated electrolyte solution, that claim 4 is being treated as requiring the claimed electrolyte solution of independent claim 1 in at least one of the electrolytic processing steps of claim 4.
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.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (TW I588302 B, as previously attached) as evidenced by Sui et al. (CN 111850620 A, as previously attached) and in view of Matsunaga et al. (JP 2005048277 A, using attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagi teaches a multi-stage method of producing a roughened copper foil, including the step of a “fine roughening treatment” in an electrolytic bath ([00002], [00041]). In one step, the electrolyte solution comprises 13 g/L of copper, 70 g/L sulfuric acid, and 100 mg/L (0.1 g/L) of 9-phenyl acridine ([00068]-[00070]: erroneously as “9-phenylacetidine” but referred to as 9-phenyl acridine elsewhere). It is not specified that the concentration of sulfuric acid is in terms of the sulfate mass concentration, but one skilled in the art will appreciate that if taken as H2SO4 concentration, the mass of sulfate in solution is still within the claimed range of 30-120 g/L:
70
g
L
H
2
S
O
4
*
96.06
g
S
O
4
2
-
m
o
l
98.07
g
H
2
S
O
4
m
o
l
=
68.57
g
L
S
O
4
2
-
Yanagi does not teach the role of 9-phenyl acridine in the solution. However, Sui teaches that 9-phenyl acridine in a copper sulfate electroplating solution has the ability to form a coordination compound with copper ([0034]). The formation of coordination compounds is stated to improve the clarity of peaks on the copper foil surface.
Yanagi does not teach a benzotriazole-based compound as the coordination compound, as the claim has been amended.
However, Matsunaga teaches that in shaping copper particles into spindle or dendritic form, it is most preferable to use a solution comprising one or more of 9-phenylacridine and carboxybenzotriazole, reading on the claim limitation of a benzotriazole-based coordination compound ([0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to either use carboxybenzotriazole, as taught by Matsunaga, in the copper plating bath of Yanagi as opposed to 9-phenylacridine, or, alternatively, to have used both 9-phenylacridine and carboxybenzotriazole together, as taught by Matsunaga. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as these two compounds are recognized in the art as equivalents for the same purpose of forming a roughening layer on the copper foil, or can alternatively be used together to provide for the desired effect.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yanagi discloses further steps involving adding a zinc anti-rusting layer over the roughened copper foil (Yanagi [00042]). However, this plating is an optional step and occurs in a separate electrolytic solution ([00062]). Therefore, it is not required by Yanagi to include other metallic ions in the electrolyte solution of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the multi-stage method of modified Yanagi includes wherein the concentration of copper ions is lower in a first step than a second step (Yanagi [00059], [00061]: disclosed as second and micro-roughening stages). In the second step, the concentration of copper is 13 g/L, within the claimed range of 1 g/L to 20 g/L ([00061]).
In the first step, the concentration of copper is 10.8 g/L, outside the claimed range of 0.1 g/L to 10 g/L. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yanagi teaches that a silane coupling layer may be added to the copper foil after the electrolytic process of claim 1 (Yanagi [00043]), equivalent to a silylation treatment process as described by the instant application’s specification at [0028].
Regarding claim 7, modified Yanagi does not explicitly state that the process uses direct current. However, the current densities are given as constants in specific examples (Yanagi [00067]: 50 A/dm2), and no mention is made of their change with time aside from the duration of the applied current. It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art that the applied current is direct current, as is typical in the art.
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Yanagi teaches that the treatment occurs in a 30 °C bath, with 50 A/dm2 applied current, for 4 seconds ([00067]). These values fall within the claimed ranges of 25-60°C, 1-120 A/dm2, and 1-45 seconds, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights