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 Status
Applicants’ January 08, 2026 to the October 09, 2025 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any objections or rejections present in the most recent office action and not repeated here, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that “a primer layer capable of being deposited on said copper substrate” under a broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the primer layer to actually be in contact or deposited on the substrate. The phrase “capable of being” is functional language wherein a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114II). In the instant situation a primer layer that is capable of being deposited would meet this claim limitation, even if not on the substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is not written description support for “a primer layer capable of being deposited” as amended. There is support to recite the primer layer to specifically be deposited on the substrate, but there is not support to broadly recite the primer layer is capable of being deposited on the substrate (which encompasses any primer layer that is only required to be “capable of being deposited”). Examiner suggests amending to “primer layer deposited”
Regarding claims 3-10, these claims are each rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their respective dependencies on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is indefinite what a “corrosion protection amount” is. Examiner notes that “corrosion protection percentage” has been made of record in the application, but this is not the same as “corrosion protection amount”. For purposes of examination it shall be considered the number of argon atoms, based on claim 2 of July 03, 2025.
Regarding claims 3-10, these claims are each rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their respective dependencies on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to the instant claim is Muenz as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Muenz further teaches Ar ions in the Ti or Ta or Nb layer (Pg. 5 [9]). Muenz does not teach or suggest, alone, or in combination with the prior art, wherein argon atoms are proportional to a corresponding percentage of the ate last one oxidized transition metal of said primer layer, the argon atoms in said primer layer having a corresponding increase in proportion to the increase in percentage of the least one oxidized transition metal, and wherein argon atoms in the corrosion protection layer are proportional to a corresponding percentage of the at least one oxidized transition metal of the corrosion protection layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ claim amendments, and related arguments, filed January 08, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of October 09, 2025 have been withdrawn. The examiner specifically notes the applicants’ definition of “stays in proportion’ (Pgs. 5 and 6). However, in light of applicants’ claim amendments, further 112(b) rejections are made, as discussed above.
Applicants’ amendment and related arguments with respect to 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of October 09, 2025 have been withdrawn.
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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784