DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by KR 10-0391778 (English machine translation filed by Applicant with the IDS of 7/12/24) as evidenced by the Technical Data Sheet for PTFE at Alro.com (see https://alro.com/datapdf/plastics/technicaldatasheets/TDS_PTFE/pdf) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 rejection of claim(s) 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (KR 10-0391778 -English translation cited on IDS of 7/12/24) as evidenced by the Technical Data Sheet for PTFE by Alro (see https://alro.com/datapdf/plastics/technicaldatasheets/TDS_PTFE/pdf ) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (KR 10-0391778 -English translation cited on IDS of 7/12/24) in view of JP 2021-116440 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP09-003220 (see English machine translation of associated application number 1995-JP-305981) as evidenced by Technical Data Sheet for PTFE by Alro (see https://alro.com/datapdf/plastics/technicaldatasheets/TDS_PTFE/pdf).
With regard to claims 1-2 and 8, JP 09-003220 discloses a polymer substrate formed from a fluorine-containing polymer, PTFE (see para [0084], [0106]), wherein the substrate is surface-treated via an ion beam treatment to reduce the water contact angle of the surface to zero and thereby improve adhesion with a metal layer formed thereon (see para [0060]-[0069], [0093]-[0096] and Figure 6, which shows that at an ion beam irradiation level above about 6x1016 ions/cm2, the water contact angle with the surface modified player is zero).
The reference teaches the use of ionized water vapor in the ion beam pretreatment step and not he claimed step of pretreatment with argon gas followed by hydrogen gas.” However, the specific types of gases used present a process limitation in an article claim and does not structurally or compositionally distinguish the claimed low dielectric polymer substrate from that taught by the prior art in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
It has been held that: “even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. “ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The reference fails to disclose a specific embodiment wherein the dielectric constant of the PTFE is 3 or less. However, PTFE is known in the art to be a low dielectric material with a dielectric constant of 2.1 as evidenced by the Technical Data Sheet for PTFE by Alro (see https://alro.com/datapdf/plastics/technicaldatasheets/TDS_PTFE/pdf).
JP 09-003220 as evidenced by the Technical Data Sheet for PTFE teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for the claimed thickness of the polymer substrate layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an optimal thickness for the polymer substrate taught by the applied prior art based on the desired end use of the coated substrate. Determination of suitable thicknesses would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 6, see at least para [0120].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/1/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to JP 09-003220 fails to disclose or suggest a low dielectric polymer substrate having the claimed CF binding energy of the surface modified layer at around 292 eV.
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 HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm ET.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights