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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 Jun. 2026 has been entered.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo and Shimoda (JP 5408971 B2, published 05 Feb. 2014, hereinafter Matsuo) and evidence provided by Engineering Toolbox (“Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Materials,” accessed 07 Jun. 2025, hereinafter Engineering Toolbox).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, Matsuo teaches a method of joining a resin sheet and a metal film by irradiating the resin sheet-metal film with laser beams (Abstract). Matsuo teaches the thickness of the resin sheet is 10 to 500 µm (paragraph 0021), and the thickness of the metal film is 5 to 500 µm (paragraph 0024). Matsuo teaches the metal film is made of copper (paragraph 0023). Matsuo teaches the resin sheet is made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (paragraph 0019). Matsuo teaches that his process involves placing his laminate (Items 1a and 1b) between a flat support material (Items 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during irradiation with a laser (paragraph 0011 and Figure 1, reproduced below from original Japanese patent document).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is the examiner’s position that given Matsuo teaches the use of a flat support material (Item 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during lamination, the resulting laminate would have a curvature within the claimed range.
Matsuo teaches that laser heating should not affect the back side of the polymer layer being joined to the copper layer (paragraph 022); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would vary joining parameters (for example, laser power and laser duration) to avoid affecting the far side of the polymer layer being joined. It is the examiner’s position that this optimization of the joining conditions based on Matsuo’s teaching would result in processing conditions such that the laser heating would affect less than 80% of the thickness of the PET resin film.
As evidenced by Engineering Toolbox, PET has a linear expansion coefficient of 59.4 (table, page 5).
Based on the thicknesses of the resin and copper layers, Matsuo teaches a ratio of metal thickness to resin thickness of 0.01 (5/500) to 50 (500/10).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected thicknesses of the polyester film and copper film and their ratio from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Matsuo because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Matsuo does not disclose the peel strength of the PET resin layer-copper foil interface joined by laser processing. However, given that the PET layer-copper foil interface of Matsuo has a polymer resin with the same claimed property and thickness and a copper foil with the same claimed thickness and these two layers are joined by the same laser processing, within the overlapping ranges, as the claimed invention, the PET resin layer-copper foil interface joined by laser processing of Matsuo would inherently have the same peel strength behavior as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for peel strength behavior or material failure.
In light of the overlap between the claimed joined article and that disclosed by Matsuo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a joined article that is both disclosed by Matsuo and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (US Patent Application 2020/0048420 A1, published 13 Feb. 2020, hereinafter Hosoda) in view of Matsuo and Shimoda (JP 5408971 B2, published 05 Feb. 2014, hereinafter Matsuo) and further in view of Jia et al. (“Research on temperature-assisted laser transmission welding of copper foil and polyethylene terephthalate,” J.Manuf.Proc., Vol. 57, pp. 677-690, published 2020, hereinafter Jia) and evidence provided by Matmake (“Thermal Expansion of Common Polymers and Plastics,” accessed 23 Jun. 2026, hereinafter Matmake).
Regarding claims 1-6, Hosoda teaches a fluororesin laminate (Abstract and Figure 1, reproduced below). Hosoda teaches the thickness of the fluororesin film is 1 to 3,000 µm (paragraph 0094) and the thickness of his copper foil is 12 µm (paragraph 0295).
PNG
media_image2.png
388
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on the thicknesses of the resin and copper layers, Hosoda teaches a ratio of metal thickness to resin thickness of 0.004 (12/3,000) to 12 (12/1).
Hosoda teaches that the peel strength at the interface between the fluororesin layer and the copper layer is at least 5 N/cm (paragraph 0184).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected thicknesses of the fluorine resin layer and copper foil and their ratio from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Hosoda because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Hosoda does not disclose the linear expansion coefficient (CTE) of his fluororesin film.
As evidenced by Matmake, the eight fluororesins listed in their table have CTE values ranging from 50 to 216 ppm/K (pages 2-4). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the fluororesin copolymer taught by Hosoda would have a CTE greater than 17 ppm/K.
Hosoda does not disclose joining the fluorine layer to the copper foil by heating the interface with laser light, thereby generating a heat-affected region in the fluorine resin layer.
Matsuo teaches a method of joining a resin sheet and a metal film by irradiating the resin sheet-metal film with laser beams (Abstract). Matsuo teaches the thickness of the resin sheet is 10 to 500 µm (paragraph 0021), and the thickness of the metal film is 5 to 500 µm (paragraph 0024). Matsuo teaches the metal film is made of copper (paragraph 0023). Matsuo teaches the resin sheet is made from thermoplastic resin compositions (paragraph 0019). Matsuo teaches that his process involves placing his laminate (Items 1a and 1b) between a flat support material (Items 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during irradiation with a laser (paragraph 0011 and Figure 1, reproduced above). It is the examiner’s position that given Matsuo teaches the use of a flat support material (Item 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during lamination, the resulting laminate would have a curvature within the claimed range.
Matsuo teaches that laser heating should not affect the back side of the polymer layer being joined to the copper layer (paragraph 022); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would vary joining parameters (for example, laser power and laser duration) to avoid affecting the far side of the polymer layer being joined. It is the examiner’s position that this optimization of the joining conditions based on Matsuo’s teaching would result in processing conditions such that the laser heating would affect less than 80% of the thickness of the fluorine resin film.
Given that Hosoda and Matsuo are drawn to polymeric resin-copper film laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the joining process taught by Matsuo in joining the fluororesin film to the copper foil in the laminate taught by Hosoda. Since Hosoda and Matsuo are both drawn to polymeric resin-copper film laminates, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the joining process taught by Matsuo in joining the fluororesin film to the copper foil in the laminate taught by Hosoda. Further, Matsuo teaches (paragraph 0007):
the contact state between the resin sheet and the metal film at the time of welding has a significant impact on the joining quality, and that by setting this contact state to a specified state, a sheet joint with improved joining quality can be formed.
and (paragraph 0009):
the resin sheet and the metal film to be welded to the resin sheet are in a suitable contact state during laser light irradiation, thereby forming a homogeneous welded state and improving the joining quality of the sheet joined body.
Further, Jia teaches the use of laser transmission welding of copper foils to polymeric films as part of the process to form flexible printed circuit boards, high strength joints can be obtained by laser welding, and obtaining high strength joints is of great significance for the flexible electronics industry (Abstract and page 689, 1st column, 4. Conclusions section, 1st and 5th paragraphs).
Regarding claims 7-8, Hosoda in view of Matsuo teaches the elements of claim 1, and Hosoda teaches that his layer B, which is laminated to his fluororesin layer, is a thermoset substrate with a metal plating layer (paragraphs 0166 and 0171).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the fluororesin layer onto the plated metal of the thermoset substrate by using the joining method taught by Matsuo for the advantages presented above.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasa et al. (US Patent Application 2007/0246255 A1, published 25 Oct. 2007, hereinafter Iwasa) in view of Matsuo and Shimoda (JP 5408971 B2, published 05 Feb. 2014, hereinafter Matsuo) and further in view of Jia et al. (“Research on temperature-assisted laser transmission welding of copper foil and polyethylene terephthalate,” J.Manuf.Proc., Vol. 57, pp. 677-690, published 2020, hereinafter Jia) and evidence provided by Matmake (“Thermal Expansion of Common Polymers and Plastics,” accessed 23 Jun. 2026, hereinafter Matmake).
Regarding claims 1-6, Iwasa teaches a fluororesin laminate (Abstract, paragraph 0016, and Figure 1, reproduced below). Iwasa teaches the thickness of the fluororesin film is 10 to 500 µm (paragraph 0037) and the thickness of his copper foil is preferably 1 to 30 µm (paragraph 0042).
PNG
media_image3.png
450
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Based on the thicknesses of the resin and copper layers, Iwasa teaches a ratio of metal thickness to resin thickness of 0.002 (1/500) to 3 (30/10).
Iwasa teaches that the peel strength at the interface between the fluororesin layer and the copper layer is 31 N/cm (paragraph 0058).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected thicknesses of the fluorine resin layer and copper foil and their ratio from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Iwasa because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Iwasa does not disclose the linear expansion coefficient (CTE) of his fluororesin film.
As evidenced by Matmake, the eight fluororesins listed in their table have CTE values ranging from 50 to 216 ppm/K (pages 2-4). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the fluororesin copolymer taught by Hosoda would have a CTE greater than 17 ppm/K.
Iwasa does not disclose joining the fluorine layer to the copper foil by heating the interface with laser light, thereby generating a heat-affected region in the fluorine resin layer.
Matsuo teaches a method of joining a resin sheet and a metal film by irradiating the resin sheet-metal film with laser beams (Abstract). Matsuo teaches the thickness of the resin sheet is 10 to 500 µm (paragraph 0021), and the thickness of the metal film is 5 to 500 µm (paragraph 0024). Matsuo teaches the metal film is made of copper (paragraph 0023). Matsuo teaches the resin sheet is made from thermoplastic resin compositions (paragraph 0019). Matsuo teaches that his process involves placing his laminate (Items 1a and 1b) between a flat support material (Items 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during irradiation with a laser (paragraph 0011 and Figure 1, reproduced above). It is the examiner’s position that given Matsuo teaches the use of a flat support material (Item 2) and a pressing member (Item 3) during lamination, the resulting laminate would have a curvature within the claimed range.
Matsuo teaches that laser heating should not affect the back side of the polymer layer being joined to the copper layer (paragraph 022); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would vary joining parameters (for example, laser power and laser duration) to avoid affecting the far side of the polymer layer being joined. It is the examiner’s position that this optimization of the joining conditions based on Matsuo’s teaching would result in processing conditions such that the laser heating would affect less than 80% of the thickness of the fluorine resin film.
Given that Iwasa and Matsuo are drawn to polymeric resin-copper film laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the joining process taught by Matsuo in joining the fluororesin film to the copper foil in the laminate taught by Iwasa. Since Iwasa and Matsuo are both drawn to polymeric resin-copper film laminates, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the joining process taught by Matsuo in joining the fluororesin film to the copper foil in the laminate taught by Iwasa. Further, Matsuo teaches (paragraph 0007):
the contact state between the resin sheet and the metal film at the time of welding has a significant impact on the joining quality, and that by setting this contact state to a specified state, a sheet joint with improved joining quality can be formed.
and (paragraph 0009):
the resin sheet and the metal film to be welded to the resin sheet are in a suitable contact state during laser light irradiation, thereby forming a homogeneous welded state and improving the joining quality of the sheet joined body.
Further, Jia teaches the use of laser transmission welding of copper foils to polymeric films as part of the process to form flexible printed circuit boards, high strength joints can be obtained by laser welding, and obtaining high strength joints is of great significance for the flexible electronics industry (Abstract and page 689, 1st column, 4. Conclusions section, 1st and 5th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 7, Iwasa in view of Matsuo teaches the elements of claim 1, and Iwasa teaches the laminating multiple fluororesin-copper layer laminates to form a multilayer printed wiring board; thereby, obtaining a second resin layer attached to joined fluororesin-copper layer article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and affidavit filed 16 Jun. 2026 have been fully considered, and the examiner found them to be persuasive. However, now grounds of rejection have been presented above.
Applicant amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that the core polyimide layer in the laminate of Okamoto would absorb the laser light, and this absorption by the polyimide layer would damage the polyimide layer and reduce the laser power reaching the metal interface.
However, as presented above, Matsuo’s, Hosoda’s, and Iwasa’s laminate configurations do not have intervening polyimide layers.
Applicant argues that the operating conditions of the current invention are very different from the operating conditions taught by Matsuo.
However, there are no operating conditions in the claims of the current invention. It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the laser power and relative speed in order to obtain the claimed laminate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is 571-272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at telephone number 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights