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 .
The amendment filed 3/2/2026 has been entered. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending in the application. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori (US2023/0363090A1) taken alone and/or in further view of Ohkubo (Drastic Improvement in Adhesion Property of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) via Heat-Assisted Plasma Treatment Using a Heater) or Ohkubo ‘829 (JP2017043829A, please again refer to the machine translation for the below cited sections).
Komori teaches a fluororesin film, a copper-clad laminate consisting of a copper foil (as in instant claim 4) directly bonded to one or both surfaces of the fluororesin film (as in instant claim 1), and a method for producing the copper-clad laminate, wherein the fluororesin film includes a fluorine-containing composition, with an oxygen element percentage on one or both surfaces of the film of 1.35 atom % or more, and an absolute value of a rate of dimensional change of the film in MD and TD before and after heat treatment as measured when the film is heat treated at 180°C is 2% or less (Abstract, Claim 1). Komori discloses that the fluororesin film has excellent adhesion even to highly smooth copper foil, wherein it is preferable that the copper foil has a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less on at least the surface to be bonded to the above fluororesin film, and that preferably when used for a substrate for circuits, the copper foil is not subjected to a surface roughening treatment given that irregularities on the surface of the copper foil cause loss of electrical signals in high frequency applications (Paragraphs 0084, 0092, and 0119-0120). Komori teaches that the laminate has an adhesion strength between the copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less and the fluororesin film of preferably 0.8 N/mm or more (as in instant claim 1; Paragraphs 0067, 0094, and 0118), and can be produced by stacking the copper foil directly on a surface of the fluororesin film and bonding the fluororesin film to the copper foil under heat and pressure, wherein prior to stacking, the fluororesin film is subjected to a surface treatment step, such as plasma discharge treatment, from the standpoint of improving adhesiveness of the fluororesin film by providing an abundance of oxygen atoms on the surface(s) thereof, and an annealing treatment by heat treating at a temperature of preferably the glass transition temperature Tg-20°C or more and less than the melting point of the film from the standpoint of releasing sufficient internal stress to provide a dimensionally stable film having a rate of dimensional change of 2% or less as noted above (as in instant claim 6; Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0067, 0070-0081, and 0108-0121).
Komori teaches that the copper foil having Rz of 1.5 µm or less is not limited and commercially available copper foil may be used with examples thereof including commercially available electrolytic copper foil CF-T9DA-SV-18 having a thickness of 18 µm and Rz 0.85 µm, made by Fukuda Metal Foil & Powder Co., Ltd. (Paragraph 0087), which the Examiner again notes is known to be an ultra-low roughness non-roughening-treated electrolytic copper foil with a root mean square roughness within the claimed range of 0.2 µm or smaller (as evidenced by Ueda, US2025/0357669A1, Paragraphs 0133 and 0187). In terms of the fluororesin film, Komori teaches that the “resin constituting the fluororesin is not limited and may be a polymer including a fluorine atom” (emphasis added, Paragraph 0023), and although Komori teaches that a “fluororesin which can be melt molded is more preferred as fluororesin” (emphasis added) with examples thereof including tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) copolymers as recited in Paragraphs 0025-0026, particularly a tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether (PAVE) copolymer (PFA) with a preferred molar ratio of TFE/PAVE units of 70/30 or more and less than 99.5/0.5 or a tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) hexafluoropropylene (HEP) copolymer (FEP) with a preferred molar ratio of TFE/HEP units of 70/30 or more and less than 99/1 (Paragraphs 0026-0034), which “allows melt molding, and thus the cost of processing can be lower than cases using PTFE” (i.e., polytetrafluoroethylene consisting of structural units derived from tetrafluoroethylene) and “adhesiveness when bonding to copper foil can be improved” (Paragraph 0027), the Examiner takes the position that although not a preferred fluororesin of Komori, PTFE – “a resin base material consisting of structural units derived from tetrafluoroethylene” as in instant claim 1 and having properties as recited in instant claim 2 - is clearly encompassed by the teachings of Komori and given that PTFE homopolymers as well as TFE copolymers as taught by Komori are known to be utilized in the art (e.g., as evidenced by Ohkubo ‘829, Paragraph 0023, or previously discussed Kasai, Paragraph 0034), PTFE would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based upon the teachings of Komori.
Hence, with respect to amended claims 1-2 and 4-5, Komori clearly teaches and/or suggests a laminated body consisting of a PTFE fluororesin film that is subjected to a surface plasma discharge treatment from the standpoint of improving adhesiveness of the fluororesin film, reading upon the claimed “resin layer formed from a resin base material consisting of structural units derived from tetrafluoroethylene, and at least one surface of the resin layer is plasma-treated” as in instant claim 1, and a copper foil having a surface roughness of Rz of 1.5 µm or less as the claimed metal layer, particularly a copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less, and more particularly, in light of the specific recitation to the use of the commercially-available CF-T9DA-SV-18, a copper foil having a surface roughness Sq within the claimed range of 0.2 µm or smaller as in instant claim 1 and a thickness of 18 µm falling within the thickness range of instant claim 5, stacked directly on the plasma-treated surface of the fluororesin film, and wherein adhesion strength between the copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less and the fluororesin film is preferably 0.8 N/mm or more, reading upon the claimed “adhesive strength between the resin layer and the metal layer is 0.7 N/mm or higher” as in instant claim 1, thereby rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2 and 4-5 obvious over the teachings of Komori (taken alone) given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally and/or alternatively, given the teachings of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829, as discussed in detail in the prior office action and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the adhesion properties of a fluororesin, particularly PTFE, can be greatly improved by utilizing heat-assisted plasma treatment, and thus evidence of the reasonable expectation of success when selecting PTFE as the fluororesin in the invention taught by Komori, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention would have been (further or alternatively) obvious over the teachings of Komori in view of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829.
Further with respect to amended claim 6, in addition to the above wherein it is again noted that Komori teaches that the metal-clad laminate can be produced by stacking the copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less directly on a surface of the fluororesin film (reading upon the claimed “stacking the metal layer directly on the…surface of the resin layer”) and bonding the fluororesin film to the copper foil under heat and pressure (reading upon “heating and compressing the resin layer and the metal layer”), wherein prior to stacking, the fluororesin film is subjected to a surface treatment step, such as plasma discharge treatment (reading upon the claimed “performing a plasma treatment on the at least one surface of the resin layer”) from the standpoint of improving adhesiveness of the fluororesin film (thus reading upon the claimed “stacking the metal layer directly on the plasma-treated surface of the resin layer”) by providing an abundance of oxygen atoms on the surface(s) thereof, and an annealing treatment by heat treating at a temperature of preferably the glass transition temperature Tg-20°C or more and less than the melting point of the film (reading upon and/or overlapping the claimed temperature of the resin layer) from the standpoint of releasing sufficient internal stress to suppress change in the shape of the film over time (Paragraph 0012-0020) and provide a dimensionally stable film having an absolute value of a rate of dimensional change of the film in MD and TD before and after heat treatment of 2% or less as measured when the film is heat treated at 180°C (Abstract), e.g. a temperature falling within the above annealing temperature range taught by Komori and within the surface temperature range of instant claim 6, such that it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the annealed fluororesin film taught by Komori having dimensional stability in the MD and TD as noted above and bonded to the copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 µm or less (e.g. no substantial surface roughness that would allow an increase in surface area of the fluororesin film in a thickness direction) via heat and pressure to exhibit “an increase in a surface area of the resin layer due to the heating and compressing of 10% or less” as in instant claim 6 (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0067, 0070-0081, and 0108-0121); Komori also teaches that the order of the above surface treatment and annealing treatment is not limited (Paragraph 0082). Hence, although Komori teaches that it is preferable to perform the surface treatment first and then perform the annealing treatment, Komori provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the annealing treatment may be performed first and/or that the order of the two treatments may be simultaneous, thereby reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed “performing a plasma treatment on the at least one surface of the resin layer, with a temperature of the at least one surface of the resin layer being set to” a temperature (as in instant claim 6) of the glass transition temperature Tg-20°C or more and less than the melting point of the film as taught by Komori with respect to the annealing temperature, overlapping and hence rendering obvious the claimed surface temperature as recited in instant claim 6. Further, given that it is prima facie obviousness to change or select the order of performing process steps in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)), the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Komori, taken alone.
Additionally and/or alternatively, given the teachings of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829, as discussed in detail in the prior office action and incorporated herein by reference, wherein the adhesion properties of a fluororesin, particularly PTFE, can be greatly improved by utilizing heat-assisted plasma treatment as noted above, with Ohkubo specifically teaching a surface temperature of the PTFE/fluororesin film during the plasma treatment controlled to about 260°C (falling within the claimed temperature range of the “(melting point of the fluorine-based resin – 150)°C or higher” as in instant claim 6), while Ohkubo ‘829 specifically teaching that the surface temperature of the PTFE/fluororesin substrate is set to (the melting point of the fluororesin substrate – 120)°C or higher (Paragraphs 0018-0020, 0031), reading upon the claimed temperature range as recited in instant claim 6. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a heat-assisted plasma treatment step as in Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829 to treat the PTFE fluororesin film in the invention taught by Komori, thereby conducting both the surface treatment and the annealing treatment taught by Komori simultaneously, or in the same order, while utilizing an annealing temperature as taught by Komori and/or a surface temperature as in Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829 reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed temperature range as recited in instant claim 6, and thereby rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 6 (further or alternatively) obvious over the teachings of Komori in view of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829 given that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, wherein the claimed dimensional stability (i.e. increase in a surface area of the resin layer due to the heating and compressing is 10% or less) of the PTFE fluororesin layer would result therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above based upon the teachings of Komori taken alone and/or in further view of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829, wherein the Examiner notes that although Komori teaches that TFE copolymers are preferred over PTFE as the fluororesin as discussed in detail above, “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Hence, given that Komori clearly teaches that the fluororesin is not limited such that PTFE homopolymer would have been encompassed by and/or rendered obvious over the teachings of Komori, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2 and 4-6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Komori taken alone and/or in further view of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829 for the reasons discussed in detail above with respect to the amended claims.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments over Komori as recited in Section III on pages 5-6 and in Section V on pages 7-8, of the response filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the “preferred” melt-moldable fluororesin copolymers over the “nonpreferred” PTFE of Komori are not persuasive. The Applicant also argues that “in order to secure the sufficient adhesiveness when bonding the fluorine film and the copper foil, Komori requires that the film has the oxygen element percentage of 1.35 atom % or more measured by the method recited in claim 1 of Komori,” with reference to the Abstract of Komori as well, however, the Applicant does not clearly state how such oxygen content taught by Komori fails to meet the limitations of the claims, particularly given that Komori clearly teaches that the oxygen content is provided by surface treatment of the fluororesin film, such as by plasma discharge treatment as in the instant invention, with Ohkubo and Ohkubo ‘829 also teaching that plasma surface treatment of a PTFE film “formed from a resin base material consisting of structural units derived from tetrafluoroethylene” can provide oxygen groups or an oxygen element content on the plasma-treated PTFE film (Entire document). The Applicant also argues that “according to paragraph [0027] of Komori, it is understood that adhesiveness [allegedly] decreases when PTFE is used” and that “[i]n addition, when PTFE is used, it is necessary to employ higher temperature in an annealing treatment which [allegedly] would make it difficult to satisfy the oxygen element percentage required by Komori,” referring to paragraph [0065] of Komori, and thereby arguing that “a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Komori’s laminate to use PTFE instead of the fluororesin of Komori because doing so would [allegedly] decrease the adhesiveness between fluororesin and copper foil thereby [allegedly] rendering Komori unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2143.01 V.)” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that Komori clearly teaches that the “resin constituting the fluororesin film is not limited and may be a polymer including a fluorine atom” (Paragraph 0023), and although Komori does teach that melt-moldable fluororesins are “more preferred” with the recited fluororesin copolymers of Paragraphs 0025-0026 providing improved adhesiveness when bonding to copper foil, and providing lower processing cost than cases using PTFE, one having ordinary skill in the art would have clearly understood that Komori clearly encompasses PTFE and that contrary to Applicant’s arguments, does not teach that “adhesiveness decreases when PTFE is used” in the invention of Komori (implying that PTFE could not obtain sufficient adhesiveness as required by Komori) and/or that PTFE as the fluororesin of Komori would somehow be “unsatisfactory” for its intended purpose as argued by the Applicant. It is also noted that paragraph [0065] of Komori as referenced by the Applicant does not appear to correspond at all to the annealing treatment, “higher temperature”, or oxygen element percentage, and given that the Applicant provides no evidence that when employing PTFE, the oxygen element percentage required by Komori could not be satisfied and/or that the adhesiveness or adhesion strength taught by Komori could not be obtained when utilizing PTFE with copper, Applicant’s arguments over Komori taken alone and/or in further view of Ohkubo or Ohkubo ‘829 as applied above are not persuasive. Hence, the Examiner maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the cited prior art above.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 3/2/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hosoda (US2020/0048420A1) teaches a laminate for use in producing printed circuit boards, wherein the laminate consists of a layer A10 containing a fluororesin having a melting point of from 260°C to 380°C, particularly a PTFE homopolymer or TFE copolymer; and a layer B12 made of another substrate, such as a layer of copper foil having a maximum height Rz of at least 1 nm and at most 2.5 µm, directly laminated on a first surface 10a side of the fluororesin layer A10 that may be subjected to plasma treatment. Nagato (US2024/0092061A1) teaches a single-sided joined article (14) consisting of a metal (13), such as a thin copper foil, directly joined to one surface of a fluororesin (12), such as a sheet of PTFE homopolymer or TFE copolymer, wherein the metal (13) preferably has a surface roughness Rz of 2 µm or lower at a surface joined to the fluororesin (12) and the fluororesin (12) is preferably subjected to an adhesive surface treatment at a surface joined to the metal to improve joining strength, preferably a plasma or corona treatment.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights