Status of Claims
Claims 20-38 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are cancelled.
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 .
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
The previous objections to claims 7 and 17-18 are withdrawn in view of Applicant cancelling claims 7 and 17-18.
All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 July 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office action on 20 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 20-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamori et al. (CN 107710890).
Regarding claims 20-21 and 26-32, Takamori discloses a method of forming printed wiring boards (title) comprising a resin substrate and a copper foil [0233] (= a method for manufacturing a laminate of an insulating substrate and copper), comprising the steps of:
Forming a laminate by providing a surface profile (e.g. protrusions, [0094]) on a copper foil and bonding the foil with a resin layer [0229], [0233] (= bonding an insulating substrate and a copper component having protrusions on a surface thereof);
Transferring the surface profile of the copper foil to the resin substrate by peeling [0109], [0238] (= transferring the protrusions to a surface of the insulating substrate by peeling off the copper component to form a seed layer; note that Takamori discloses transferring the shape of the profile. The instant claim does not require the copper itself to be transferred. Additionally, the claim later states that the copper is peeled off and therefore removed and does not indicate any copper remains);
Forming a patterned dry film [0233] (= forming a resist on a predetermined area of a surface of the seed layer);
Performing electrolytic plating on the surface that is not coated by the dry film [0233], [0243] (= plating, with copper, the surface of the seed layer in an area where the resist has not been layered to laminate the copper);
Removing the plating resist [0233], [0244] (= removing the resist); and
Electroless copper layer formed on the non-circuit area is removed [0233], the electroless copper layer being part of the seed layer (e.g. the seed layer including both the surface profile and the electroless copper layer) (= removing the seed layer that has been exposed by the removal of the resist, additionally the surface profile is removed).
Takamori discloses bonding through pressing [0096] and using a thermosetting resin [0079]. Although Takamori does not explicitly state thermocompression, given the teachings of Takamori describing the use of a thermosetting resin for bonding, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of heat to bond the resin substrate and copper. Moreover, Takamori discloses the conventional use of hot pressing [0079].
Regarding the claimed “wherein, when the surface of the copper component that has been peeled off from the insulating substrate is analyzed…” (claim 20) and “wherein a metal atom contained in the copper component is detected…” (claims 21, 26-32), the phrasing is directed towards a method of analysis not directed towards a method for manufacturing a laminate. While Takamori does not specifically address the claim limitations directed towards analyzing or detecting a surface of the copper component, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the method steps taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Regarding claim 22, the claimed “chemical treatment” is particularly broad and not limiting to any specific treatment or chemical. Takamori discloses forming and measuring the protrusions and therefore intrinsically discloses a chemical treatment since a chemical composition is present.
Regarding claim 23, Takamori does not include a desmearing step (entire disclosure).
Regarding claim 24, Takamori discloses electrolytic copper plating [0091], [0098]-[0099], [0177].
Regarding claim 25, Takamori discloses electroless plating [0233].
Claim(s) 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamori et al. (CN 107710890) in view of Sato et al. (WO 2019/093077).
Regarding claims 33-38, Takamori discloses a silane coupling treatment layer provided between the copper foil and release layer [0028]. Takamori is silent in regards to forming a copper oxide-containing layer by oxidizing the partially coated surface (claim 33) and a dissolving agent (claim 34).
Sato discloses a method of roughening a copper surface to form a printed circuit board (title, [0003]). Sato discloses the method including forming a copper oxide layer by oxidizing and dissolving the oxide surface [0007] (as applied to claims 34 and 37). Sato discloses the step of oxidation for creating irregularities on the copper surface and a smoothing of the surface irregularities with the goal of improving adhesion [0003]-[0004], [0027], [0040]. Sato discloses a dissolving agent including sodium gluconate [0025] (as applied to claims 35 and 38).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a method comprising oxidizing a copper surface and treating the oxidize surface with a dissolving agent because Sato discloses in a similar field of endeavor as Takamori oxidizing a copper surface and treating the surface with a dissolving agent for controlling the irregularities on the surface to improve adhesion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered. On page 9 the argument states that Takamori is merely the geometrical surface profile of the copper foil and not a portion of the protrusions and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. It is noted that Takamori discloses transferring the shape of the profile of the protrusion. The instant claim does not require the copper itself to be transferred. Moreover, the claim later states that the copper is peeled off and therefore removed. There is no claim language present that indicates that a portion of the protrusion including the copper itself remains on the insulating substrate.
The remaining remarks are directed towards the teachings of Xiong and will not be addressed at this time due to the grounds of rejection being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights