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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the anti-rust layer” has no antecedent basis. The claim should be dependent on claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0226655).
As to claim 1, Arai discloses a surface-treated copper foil having a surface treatment layer (figs. 1-2; ¶0001), the surface treatment layer comprising:
a primary particle layer containing Cu or Cu alloy particles formed on at least one surface of an original copper foil (figs. 1-2; ¶0018); and
a secondary particle layer containing Zn particles formed on the primary particle layer (figs. 1-2; ¶0011), wherein the secondary particle layer is composed of particle clusters formed by clustering a plurality of Zn particles (figs. 1-2).
As to claim 2, Arai discloses that the particle clusters are discontinuously distributed on the primary particle layer (figs. 1-2).
As to claim 8, Arai discloses that the Zn concentration of the surface-treated layer is 2000 μg/dm2 or more (¶0044).
As to claim 9, Arai discloses that the Zn concentration of the surface-treated layer is 3500 μg/dm2 or less (¶0044).
As to claim 10, Arai discloses an anti-rust layer on the secondary particle layer (¶0147).
As to claim 11, Arai discloses that the anti-rust layer contains chromium (¶0147).
As to claim 12, Arai discloses that the original copper foil is an electrolytic copper foil (¶0033).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tagusari et al. (Patent No. US 5,858,517).
As to claim 1, Tagusari discloses a surface-treated copper foil having a surface treatment layer (see abstract), the surface treatment layer comprising:
a primary particle layer containing Cu or Cu alloy particles formed on at least one surface of an original copper foil (col. 4 lines 11-21); and
a secondary particle layer containing Zn particles formed on the primary particle layer (col. 6 lines 17-26), wherein the secondary particle layer is composed of particle clusters formed by clustering a plurality of Zn particles (col. 6 lines 17-36 discloses the method for Zn plating on the primary particle layer).
As to claim 3, Tagusari discloses that the surface treatment layer of the surface-treated copper foil has a surface roughness (Rz) of 1.0 μm or less (col. 5 lines 14-16).
As to claim 10, Tagusari discloses an anti-rust layer on the secondary particle layer (col. 6 lines 21-25).
As to claim 11, Tagusari discloses that the anti-rust layer contains chromium (col. 6 lines 21-25).
As to claim 13, Tagusari disclsoes a copper clad laminate comprising the surface-treated copper foil of claim 1 laminated on a resin substrate (col. 6 lines 39-45).
As to claim 16, Tagusari discloses a printed wiring board manufactured using the copper clad laminate of claim 13 (see abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0226655).
As to claim 4, Arai does not disclose that, on average, at least two particle clusters are distributed in an area of 5 μm×5 μm of the surface-treated copper foil.
Arai discloses adjusting the amount of total concentration of the one or more elements (¶0034, 0042, 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two particle clusters of Arai be distributed in an area of 5 μm×5 μm of the surface-treated copper foil since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 5, wherein at most 15 particle clusters are distributed in an area of 5 μm×5 μm of the surface-treated copper foil.
Arai discloses adjusting the amount of total concentration of the one or more elements (¶0034, 0042, 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at most 15 particle clusters of Arai be distributed in an area of 5 μm×5 μm of the surface-treated copper foil since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagusari et al. (Patent No. US 5,858,517) in view of Nakajima et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0276579).
As to claim 14, Tagusari does not disclose that the resin substrate is a PTFE substrate.
Nakajima discloses a copper clad laminate having a PTFE substrate (¶0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resin substrate be made of a PTFE substrate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagusari et al. (Patent No. US 5,858,517).
As to claim 15, Tagusari does not disclose that the high-temperature deterioration rate in adhesive strength of the copper clad laminate is less than 10%.
Tagusari discloses that the peel strength of the wiring pattern was found to be 1.02 kgf/cm. (col. 9 lines 23-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the high-temperature deterioration rate in adhesive strength of the copper clad laminate be less than 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable (e.g., the surface roughness in order to improve peel strength) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that discloses that the particle size of the secondary particle layer is larger than that of the primary particle layer. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0215172) discloses a surface-treated copper foil having a finely roughened layer and a zinc-nickel layer.
Chen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0145014) discloses a copper foil having a roughness copper nodule layer and a zinc nickel layer.
Yamamoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0148136) discloses a surface treated copper foil having copper particles and a zinc coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMOL H PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7833. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, TIMOTHY THOMPSON can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/AMOL H PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights