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
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending, claim 2 having been cancelled and claims 16-20 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed March 31, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn based on Applicant’s response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN117324775A to Yu et al. (see machine translation) in view of CN117440610A to Chen (see machine translation).
As to claims 1, 3, 5 and 6, Yu discloses a method comprising: cleaning a copper substrate having a surface to increase reflectivity of the surface (see Yu paragraph [0013] and claims 1 and 5); applying a laser beam to the surface of the copper substrate (see Yu paragraph [0022] and claim 1); moving the laser beam across the surface of the copper substrate (see Yu paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0021], [0032] disclosing a scanning rate and scanning path); modifying the surface of the copper substrate to vary the surface up to one micron, wherein a surface area of the surface is increased by variations (see Yu paragraph [0022] and claims 1 and 7); and stopping the laser beam after modification of the surface is complete (where it is reasonably expected that the laser beam would be stopped after the modification is performed).
Yu does not explicitly disclose further wet-etching the surface of the copper substrate to oxidize the surface. Chen discloses a similar method wherein a copper surface is cleaned and roughened and then etched before plating (see, e.g., Chen paragraphs [0002], [0018]-[0022], [0053]). Use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(C)) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Yu and Chen such that the copper surface of Chen is roughened by the laser method disclosed by Yu and the results would have been obvious (roughening of a copper surface). As to claim 2, the combination of Yu and Chen discloses further wet-etching of the copper substrate to oxidize the surface (see Chen paragraphs [0011], [0022] and [0072] where iron chloride etch solution is known to oxidize a copper surface). As to claim 3, the combination of Yu and Chen discloses that the modifying the surface can include melting particles of the surface of the copper substrate (see Chen paragraphs [0072], [0081]). As to claims 5 and 6, the combination of Yu and Chen discloses that the copper surface can be immersion plated with tin or silver (see Chen paragraph [0018] and [0060]-[0063]). Selection of any order of performing steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of a new and unexpected results. Consult In re Burnhans, 154F.2d690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Consult also Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd.App.1959) were prior art reference discloses a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art order steps.
As to claim 4, Yu discloses that the surface area of the surface is increased by variations (see Yu paragraph [0022] and claims 1 and 7) and said variations inherently increase the roughness of the copper substrate.
As to claim 7, since Yu discloses increasing the variations of the surface and roughening the surface (see Yu paragraph [0022]), it is reasonably expected that the modified surface would be matted or non-reflective due to the increased variations. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art (see Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc., 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984)).
As to claim 8, Yu discloses activating a laser system to emit the laser (see Yu paragraph [0021] and claim 1).
As to claim 9, Yu discloses that the wavelength can be between 500-1500nm wavelength, which overlaps with the IR laser wavelengths (see Yu claim 3).
As to claim 10, Yu discloses a method comprising: cleaning a copper substrate having a surface using a chemical to increase reflectivity of the surface (see Yu paragraph [0013] and claims 1 and 5); activating a laser system to emit a laser beam and applying the laser beam to the surface of the copper substrate (see Yu paragraph [0022] and claim 1); moving the laser beam across the surface of the copper substrate (see Yu paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0021], [0032] disclosing a scanning rate and scanning path); modifying the surface of the copper substrate to vary the surface up to one micron, wherein a surface area of the surface is increased by variations (see Yu paragraph [0022] and claims 1 and 7); and stopping the laser beam after modification of the surface is complete (where it is reasonably expected that the laser beam would be stopped after the modification is performed).
Yu does not explicitly disclose further wet-etching the surface of the copper substrate and placing the copper substrate having the modified surface into an immersion plating solution. Chen discloses a similar method wherein a copper surface is cleaned and then etched before plating by placing the copper substrate into an immersion plating solution (see, e.g., Chen paragraphs [0002], [0011], [0018]-[0022], [0053], [0060]-[0063], [0072]). Use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(C)) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Yu and Chen such that the copper surface of Chen is roughened by the laser method disclosed by Yu and the results would have been obvious (roughening of a copper surface). Selection of any order of performing steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of a new and unexpected results. Consult In re Burnhans, 154F.2d690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Consult also Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd.App.1959) were prior art reference discloses a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art order steps.
As to claims 11 and 12, the combination of Yu and Chen discloses that the modifying the surface can include melting particles of the surface of the copper substrate and the melted particles can remain on the surface of the copper substrate (see Chen paragraphs [0072], [0081]).
As to claim 14, since the combination of Yu and Chen discloses increasing the variations of the surface and roughening the surface (see Yu paragraph [0022]), it is reasonably expected that the modified surface would be matted or non-reflective due to the increased variations. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art (see Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc., 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984)).
As to claim 15, the combination of Yu and Chen discloses that the copper surface can be immersion plated with tin or silver and that the silver or tin would replace the copper (see Chen paragraph [0018] and [0060]-[0063]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN117324775A to Yu et al. (see machine translation) in view of CN117440610A to Chen (see machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0036429 to Wang et al.
Yu and Chen are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 10.
As to claim 13, while the combination of Yu and Chen disclose that the wavelength can be between 500-1500nm wavelength, which overlaps with the IR laser wavelengths (see Yu claim 3), the combination of Yu and Chen does not explicitly disclose that the laser beam is emitted using an infrared diode laser. Use of infrared diode lasers are known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see Wang paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an infrared diode laser as disclosed by Wang and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious, and it would have been obvious to use an infrared diode laser and the results would have been predictable (emitting a laser within the desired wavelength band)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Yu teaches away from etching is not persuasive because Yu is understood as disclosing that the use of a laser is better than etching alone; however, Chen provides motivation for performing both etching and use of the laser (see Chen paragraph [0006], [0027], [0043], [0045] disclosing improving production efficiency while reducing costs) where Chen also discloses that use of wet etching and laser modifications are also known in the art and does not provide patentable significance (see, e.g., Chen paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights