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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim (s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashizume et al. (WO 2019/208077 A1) hereinafter Hashizume.
Regarding claim 1, Hashizume discloses a substrate (Fig.3) for a printed wiring board, the substrate comprising: a base material layer (2) containing a thermoplastic resin (polyimide); a metal nanoparticle layer (3); and a plating layer (4), wherein the base material layer, the metal nanoparticle layer, and the plating layer are stacked in this order (se Fig.3), and some of metal nanoparticles in the metal nanoparticle layer are embedded in the base material layer (see some of the nanoparticles of 3 embedded into base film 2;Fig.3).
Regarding claim 2, Hashizume discloses wherein a 180-degree peel strength of the metal nanoparticle layer with which the metal nanoparticle layer is peeled off from the base material layer is 5 N/cm or more ( the peal strength is 7.5 N/cm).
Regarding claim 3, Hashizume discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the metal nanoparticles in the metal nanoparticle layer is 1 nm or more and 500 nm or less (the diameter of the copper nanoparticles of 3 is 1nm).
Regarding claim 4, Hashizume discloses wherein, after the metal nanoparticle layer is peeled off, a surface of the base material layer has a mark of embedment including a plurality of recesses (recesses are left over after the copper nanoparticles of layer 3 are peeled off of base film 2).
Regarding claim 5, Hashizume discloses wherein, in a plan view of a region of the surface of the base material layer from which the metal nanoparticle layer has been peeled off, an area ratio of the recesses is 5% or more (see “the lower limit of the abundance ratio of the sintered particles 3a that bite into the surface of the base film 2 with respect to the plurality of sintered particles 3a that abut the surface of the base film 2 is preferably 25%, more preferably 35%, and further 50%”).
Regarding claim 6, Hashizume discloses, at the surface of the base material layer from which the metal nanoparticle layer has been peeled off, a maximum width among widths of the recesses is 1 nm or more in a plan view ( the diameter of the copper nanoparticles is 1nm).
Regarding claim 7, Hashizume discloses, wherein the thermoplastic resin is polyimide (base film 2 may be made of polyimide).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2003026776 A).
Regarding claim 8, Hashizume discloses wherein the base material layer (2) includes a first resin layer (2) containing the thermoplastic resin (polyimide) as a main component, and the first resin layer (2), and the metal nanoparticle layer (3) are stacked in this order
Hashizume fails to specifically disclose a second resin layer containing a thermosetting resin as a main component, and the second resin layer, the first resin layer, and the metal nanoparticle layer are stacked in this order.
Yamamoto discloses a second resin layer ( second 10 in Fig.1) containing a thermosetting resin (10 is made of polyimide) as a main component, and the second resin layer (10;Fig.1), the first resin layer (first 10), and the metal layer (top 2;Fig.1) are stacked in this order.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the second resin layer as shown by Yamamoto with the resin layer and metal nanoparticle layer of Hashizume in order to form a multilayer insulating core substrate that has increased rigidity and durability and withstands warping or bending.
Regarding claim 9, Hashizume discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin includes a first thermoplastic resin (see layer 2 formed of polyimide) and wherein the base material layer (2) includes a first resin layer (2) containing the thermoplastic resin (polyimide) as a main component, and the first resin layer (2), and the metal nanoparticle layer (3) are stacked in this order.
Hashizume fails to specifically disclose wherein the thermoplastic resin includes a second thermoplastic resin, the base material layer includes a first resin layer containing the first thermoplastic resin as a main component, a second resin layer containing a thermosetting resin as a main component, and a third resin layer containing the second thermoplastic resin as a main component, the third resin layer, the second resin layer, and the first resin layer are stacked in this order, and the metal nanoparticle layer is stacked at least on a surface of the first resin layer or the third resin layer.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin includes a second thermoplastic resin (see second 10 in Fig.1), the base material layer includes a first resin layer (first 10) containing the first thermoplastic resin (polyimide) as a main component, a second resin layer (second 10) containing a thermosetting resin (polyimide) as a main component, and a third resin layer (third 10) containing the second thermoplastic resin (polyimide) as a main component, the third resin layer, the second resin layer, and the first resin layer are stacked in this order (see three layers of 10 stacked on each other), and the metal layer is stacked at least on a surface of the first resin layer (see layer 2 stacked on top of first 10:Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the second resin layer as shown by Yamamoto with the resin layer and metal nanoparticle layer of Hashizume in order to form a multilayer insulating core substrate that has increased rigidity and durability and withstands warping or bending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848