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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Hidani” (US 2023/0371176).
Regarding claim 1, Hidani anticipates 1. A method for manufacturing a carrier-attached ultra-thin copper foil, comprising (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0023]-[0024]; a method for manufacturing the base material for a printed circuit having an ultra-thin metal foil layer, such as an ultra-thin copper foil layer):
a surface functionalization step that includes using an amine-based polymer compound to modify a polymer substrate, so as to form a modification layer on at least one surface of the polymer substrate (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0036], [0054]-[0056]; the base film 1 contains polyimide and is a polymer substrate, Step S11 is a surface functionalization step that includes a dispersant polyethyleneimine added to the reaction system in the form of a solution dissolved in water or a water-soluble organic solvent);
a surface activation step that includes using a palladium catalyst to activate the modification layer, so as to form an activation layer on a surface of the modification layer away from the polymer substrate (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0092]; In pretreatment step of Step S13, palladium, for example, serving as a catalyst in electroless plating is adsorbed on first conductor layer);
and a copper layer formation step that includes forming an ultra-thin copper foil on a surface of the activation layer away from the modification layer, thereby producing the carrier-attached ultra-thin copper foil (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0049]-[0050]; the third conductor layer 6 is an ultra-thin copper foil layer);
wherein the polymer substrate is capable of being separated from the ultra-thin copper foil through the modification layer and the activation layer (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0023]-[0024]; the base film 1 is capable of being separated from the third conductor layer 6 ultra-thin copper foil through the modification layer and the activation layer. Examiner’s note: the limitation “is capable of being separated” is construed as the ability to perform. Hidani’s base film 1 is able to be separated from the third conductor layer 6, therefore this limitation is anticipated by Hidani.).
Regarding claim 8, Hidani anticipates 8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the copper layer formation step includes sequentially forming a first copper layer and a second copper layer on the surface of the activation layer away from the polymer substrate, and the first copper layer and the second copper layer together constitute the ultra-thin copper foil; wherein the first copper layer is an electroless copper layer having a thickness ranging from 200 nanometers to 800 nanometers, and the second copper layer is an electroplated copper layer having a thickness ranging from 1 micrometer to 10 micrometers (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0047]-[0050]; the second conductor layer 5 is copper and is formed by electroless plating has a thickness of 200-500 nanometers, and the third conductor layer 6 is copper and is formed by electroplating and has a thickness of 0.5-10 micrometers and the two conductor layers together constitute an ultra-thin copper foil).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidani in view of “Pun” (US 10,917,973).
Regarding claim 2, Hidani discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above.
Hidani discloses 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the amine-based polymer compound is polyethyleneimine (PEI) (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0036], [0054]-[0056]; the base film 1 contains polyimide and is a polymer substrate, Step S11 is a surface functionalization step that includes a dispersant polyethyleneimine added to the reaction system in the form of a solution dissolved in water or a water-soluble organic solvent).
Hidani does not disclose the polymer substrate is a liquid crystal polymer substrate.
Pun discloses the polymer substrate is a liquid crystal polymer substrate (claim 4, the base film comprises polyimide (PI) or liquid crystal polymer (LCP)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Hidani’s method with Pun’s base film in order to conform to the devices' requirements such as ultra-thin, ultra-light, mechanical conformity, and safety under mechanical loading, as suggested by Pun at col. 1, lines 30-33.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidani in view of Pun and “Adair” (US 5,501,877).
Regarding claim 3, Hidani in view of Pun discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2 above.
Hidani does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Adair discloses 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the polyethyleneimine (PEI) is adsorbed onto the liquid crystal polymer substrate through electrostatic interaction, so as to form the modification layer (col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 8; the positively charged polyethyleneimine species, as either ions or polyelectrolytes, are strongly attracted and chemically adsorbed to the negatively charged substrate because of the large attractive electrostatic forces between the negatively charged substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Hidani’s method, as modified by Pun, with Adair’s thin film in order to result in rapid, uniform growth of a patterned film, with the ability to control grain size, as suggested by Adair at col. 1, lines 58-60.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidani in view of Pun and “Hong” (US 2023/0104206).
Regarding claim 4, Hidani in view of Pun discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2 above.
Hidani discloses 4. The method according to claim 2, wherein the surface functionalization step includes modifying the surface of the liquid crystal polymer substrate with a first aqueous solution containing polyethyleneimine (PEI), so as to form the modification layer (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0036], [0054]-[0056]; the base film 1 contains polyimide and is a polymer substrate, Step S11 is a surface functionalization step that includes a dispersant polyethyleneimine added to the reaction system in the form of a solution dissolved in water or a water-soluble organic solvent).
Hidani does not disclose wherein, in the first aqueous solution, a volume percentage concentration of polyethyleneimine ranges from 0.7 vol % to 1.3 vol %.
Hong discloses wherein, in the first aqueous solution, a volume percentage concentration of polyethyleneimine ranges from 0.7 vol % to 1.3 vol % ([0024], [0045]; the concentration of the polyethyleneimine aqueous solution is 0.5% - 3%).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Hidani’s method, as modified by Pun, with Hong’s volume percentage concentration of polyethyleneimine in order to obtain the modified epoxy resin immobilized enzyme as to improve the recycling stability of enzymes, as suggested by Hong at [0017]-[0018].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidani in view of Pun, Hong and “Yamanaka” (US 2018/0242450).
Regarding claim 5, Hidani in view of Pun and Hong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4 above.
Hidani does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Yamanaka discloses 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein a nitrogen peak is detected from the modification layer by an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS), and an elemental ratio of nitrogen atoms ranges from 3 atomic % to 9 atomic % (Figs. 1, 3D; [0062]; the peak area of a nitrogen spectrum in XPS is 1 atomic % or more and 10 atomic % or less).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Hidani’s method, as modified by Pun and Hong, with Yamanaka’s method and nitrogen peak in order to mitigate the increased production costs of vacuum equipment for installation, maintenance, and operation of the equipment, as suggested by Yamanaka at [0016].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidani in view of “Lifschitz Arribio” (US 2019/0382900).
Regarding claim 6, Hidani discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above.
Hidani does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Lifschitz Arribio discloses 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the palladium catalyst is at least one of a polyvinyl alcohol polymer-palladium (PVA-Pd) catalyst, a polyvinyl pyrrolidone capped palladium (PVP-Pd) catalyst, a tin-palladium colloidal catalyst, and an ionic palladium catalyst ([0065]; the electroless copper plating method comprises a palladium catalyst is 100 ppm of CIRCUPOSIT™ 6530 ionic palladium catalyst).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Hidani’s method with Lifschitz Arribio’s ionic palladium catalyst in order to enable a high rate of electroless copper plating at low temperatures to provide bright and uniform copper deposits on substrates, as suggested by Lifschitz Arribio at [0006].
Regarding claim 7, Hidani in view of Lifschitz Arribio discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 6 above.
Hidani discloses 7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the surface activation step includes activating the modification layer with a second aqueous solution containing the palladium catalyst to form the activation layer (Figs. 1-2, 4 and 6-7, [0036], [0054]-[0056], [0092]-[0097]; the electroless plating step S14A activates the modification layer with a second electroless plating solution containing the palladium catalyst to form the activation layer).
Hidani does not disclose wherein, in the second aqueous solution, a concentration of the palladium catalyst ranges from 20 ppm to 120 ppm.
Lifschitz Arribio discloses wherein, in the second aqueous solution, a concentration of the palladium catalyst ranges from 20 ppm to 120 ppm ([0065]; the electroless copper plating method comprises a palladium catalyst is 100 ppm of CIRCUPOSIT™ 6530 ionic palladium catalyst).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights