Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/566,488

LAMINATE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Examiner
FREEMAN, JOHN D
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Toyobo Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
53%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
339 granted / 738 resolved
-19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
779
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 738 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (JP 2006-147662) in view of Uchida et al. (US 2010/0233476) and Yoshida et al. (JP 2007-314596). Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘662 mailed 9/30/2025 and citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘596 provided with this Office Action. Regarding claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20: Iinuma discloses a copper-clad laminate comprising a copper foil and a flexible insulating layer of polyimide [abstract; 0001; 0009; 0015]. The copper foil surface has a surface roughness Ra of 0.3-3.0 µm [0025]. The copper foil is further treated with a silane coupling agent [0024]. Iinuma is silent with regard to the thickness of the silane coupling agent layer. Thickness values of a silane coupling agent layer falling within the scope of the claimed range were known in the art to have utility. For example, Uchida discloses a laminate comprising a copper foil and a polyimide film substrate [0001]. The copper foil is preferably treated with a silane coupling agent layer having a thickness of 1-50 nm [0025]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thickness values of the silane coupling agent layer known in the art to be useful to improving adhesion, including 1-50 nm as taught by Uchida. Such thicknesses in combination with Iinuma’s teaching of Ra results in relative values overlapping with the claimed range (e.g., at an Ra of 0.3 µm, a thickness that is 0.05 times such value is 0.015 µm or 15 nm). 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). Iinuma is silent with regard to a polyimide film having a benzoxazole structure. Such polymers were known in the art to have utility. For example, Yoshida discloses a polyimide film useful for copper-clad laminates having a high tensile modulus and other desirable properties [abstract; 0001; 0005-0006]. The polyimide is formed from an aromatic dianhydride and a diamine having a benzoxazole skeleton [0008-0022; 0029-0035]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known polyimides, including those taught by Yoshida, for their known properties as the polyimide of Iinuma’s copper-clad laminate. Iinuma is silent with regard to the adhesive strengths corresponding to present F0 and Ft. Given that Iinuma in view of Uchida and Yoshida discloses a laminate comprising the same materials as used in the present invention, the examiner submits the prior art laminate inherently has the claimed properties as presently claimed. Regarding claims 8-9 and 17-18: Iinuma teaches wiring boards comprising the laminate [0008]. The examiner submits the electronic devices are broadly “heating units” as claimed because electronic devices generate heat during operation. Claim(s) 6, 10, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (JP 2006-147662) in view of Uchida et al. (US 2010/0233476) and Yoshida et al. (JP 2007-314596) as applied above, and further in view of Okuyama et al. (US 2017/0225433). Regarding claims 6, 10, 15, and 19: Iinuma in view of Uchida and Yoshida discloses a laminate as previously explained. The references are silent with regard to a probe and a solar cell as claimed. Such electronic devices were known in the art to have utility. For example, Okuyama discloses a laminate comprising a polymer film, a silane coupling agent applied to the polymer film, and an inorganic substrate [0001; 0021]. The polymer film is heat resistant [0055]. The inorganic substrate comprises metal [0061; 0065]. Okuyama discloses the laminate can be used in electronic devices, including a probe and solar cell [0151-0152; 0162]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the prior art laminate in known products, including a probe and solar cell, to provide such products as desired for a given end use. Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (JP 2006-147662) in view of Uchida et al. (US 2010/0233476) and Yoshida et al. (JP 2007-314596) as applied above, and further in view of Kawakusu (US 2013/0310486). Regarding claims 7 and 16: Iinuma in view of Uchida and Yoshida discloses a laminate as previously explained. The references are silent with regard to a flat cable. Such electronic devices were known in the art. For example, Kawakusu discloses a flexible metal-clad laminate comprising a polyimide layer and a metal layer [0003]. The reference acknowledges such laminates are widely used in electronics [0004]. Kawakusu teaches a flat cable is a suitable use for such a laminate [0176]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the prior art laminate in known products, including a flat cable, to provide such products as desired for a given end use. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Provisional rejections based on Application No. 18/569,909 have been withdrawn because the application is no longer copending with the present application. Applicant argues Iinuma, Uchida, and Kawakusu fail to disclose a polyimide comprising a benzoxazole structure (p8). Applicant further argues that while Okuyama discloses such a polymer, it fails to provide a rationale to modify the teachings of Iinuma to incorporate the polymer (p8). Additionally, Applicant argues the claimed polyimide unexpectedly provides improved properties of high elastic modulus, low heat shrinkability, low coefficient of thermal expansion, and high heat resistance (p7-8). As explained in the new rejections above, while the examiner agrees Iinuma, Uchida, and Kawakusu are silent with regard to the claimed polyimide, such polymers were known in the art to have utility to provide high tensile modulus and other desirable properties as taught by Yoshida. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this polymer for these known reasons. 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 D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 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. /JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 30, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589581
THIN FILM CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577357
POLYIMIDE-BASED RESIN FILM, SUBSTRATE FOR DISPLAY DEVICE, AND OPTICAL DEVICE USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12521965
SEALED MULTILAYER STRUCTURES AND PACKAGES COMPRISING SEALED MULTILAYER STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12522704
POLYIMIDE FILM HAVING HIGH DIMENSIONAL STABILITY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12516490
MULTILAYER MEMBRANE FOR CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
53%
With Interview (+6.9%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 738 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month