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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 11 and group I of the previous restriction requirement above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: claim 11 and group I lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claim 1 as originally filed, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20200391479 A1), hereinafter '479 (of record in the application). 479 teaches a roll-bonded laminate which includes an ultrathin metal layer 20 and a metallic foil 30 (Abstract) that share an interface (Fig. 1), the ultrathin metal layer and metallic foil have a thermal treatment during which no intermetallic compounds are generated ([0064]; no intermetallic compound is contained, i.e. no intermetallic compound containing aluminum and copper at the interface between the layers) and the ultrathin metal layer is aluminum and the metal foil is copper ([0049]) and the peel strength between the ultrathin metal layer 20 and metallic foil 30 is preferably 1 N/20 mm (i.e. 5 N/Cm) or more ([0042]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Status
Applicants’ April 27, 2026 response to the January 28, 2026 Non-Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 20200391479 A1), hereinafter '479 (of record in the application)
Regarding claim 1, ‘479 teaches a roll-bonded laminate which includes an ultrathin metal layer 20 and a metallic foil 30 (Abstract) that share an interface (Fig. 1), the ultrathin metal layer and metallic foil have a thermal treatment during which no intermetallic compounds are generated ([0064]; no intermetallic compound is contained, i.e. no intermetallic compound containing aluminum and copper at the interface between the layers), the ultrathin metal layer is aluminum and the metal foil is copper ([0049]), the thickness of the metallic foil (30) is 0.01mm or greater ([0044]), and the peel strength between the ultrathin metal layer 20 and metallic foil 30 is preferably 1 N/20 mm (i.e. 5 N/Cm) or more ([0042]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479 in view of Kuge (JP2012/227241A Google Patents machine translation printed on 1/22/2026), hereinafter ‘241 (of record in the application).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5 and 7, ‘479 teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. ‘479 does not teach claimed the hardness or roughness of the aluminum, nor the claimed hardness of the copper, nor a ratio of hardness of the copper layer to hardness of the aluminum layer is 1.0-5.0.
‘241 is in a similar field of endeavor of a two-layer structure in which an Al material and a Cu material are bonded by hot-rolling (Abstract) and teaches a hardness of the Al material layer is 20-30 HV and the Cu layer of 40-50 HV (claim 1; includes values of 25 HV Al and 50 Cu HV for a ratio of 2.0 as claimed), the surface roughness of the aluminum material is Rmax of 5 micron or less (Pg. 3 [4]; Rmax is greater or equal to Rz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘479 to incorporate the roughness and hardness of the materials (and related ratio of hardnesses) taught by ‘241. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of known elements for others to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 IB). The prior art of ‘479 contained a product which differed from the claimed product by substitution of the roughness and hardness of the aluminum and copper layers (finding 1). Aluminum and copper with the claimed hardnesses and roughness of aluminum for roll-bonded layers were known in the art as cited above in ‘241 (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to related art to detail the hardness of the materials (and roughness of aluminum) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (finding 3). The roughness allows them to have sufficient peel strength (Pg. 3 [4]) and the hardness provides the desired flexibility (Pg. 3 [1]), which are desired in ‘479 ([0035] and [0042]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, ‘479 teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. ‘479 does not teach the roll-bonded laminate in a form of a wire or ribbon, nor a bonding wire or bonding ribbon comprising the roll-bonded laminate.
‘241 is in a similar field of endeavor of a two-layer structure in which an Al material and a Cu material are bonded by hot-rolling (Abstract) and teaches an Al-Cu bonding ribbon of a two layer-structure in which an Al material and a Cu material are joined by hot-rolling (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘479 to incorporate the bonding ribbon of the roll-bonded laminate taught by ‘241. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of known elements for others to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 IB). The prior art of ‘479 contained a product which differed from the claimed product by substitution the form of the roll-bonded laminate (finding 1). An Al-Cu bonding ribbon was known in the art as cited above in ‘241 (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to related art to detail a finished product of the roll-bonded laminate and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (finding 3).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under and claims 2, 5 and 7 are additionally/alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘479 in view Oda et al. (US 2013/0071686 A1), hereinafter ‘686.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-7, ‘479 teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. ‘479 does not teach the hardness of the aluminum layer is ≤ 40 HV and is 1000 series pure aluminum as specified by JIS, nor the hardness of the copper layer is ≤130 HV and the copper is 1000 series pure copper as specified by JIS, nor a ratio of hardness of the copper layer to hardness of the aluminum layer is 1.0-5.0.
‘686 is in a similar field of endeavor of aluminum and copper layers stacked and rolled to bond together ([0038]) teaches pure copper for the copper plate with an average hardness of 59 HV or greater ([0040]) and pure aluminum for the aluminum layer with a hardness of 32 HV or greater ([0041]; includes a ratio of 59 HV/32HV equal to 1.84). Regarding “1000 series…as specified by JIS”, this is product-by process language, which provides no structural limitations beyond that of a pure, which is addressed above. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by process claims over the prior art (MPEP 2113 I). In this instance, no additional structure is implied beyond “pure”, addressed above. The burden therefore shifts to applicant to come forward with a non obvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (MPEP 2113 II).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘479 to incorporate the purity and hardness of the materials (and related ratio of hardnesses) taught by ‘686. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of known elements for others to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 IB). The prior art of ‘479 contained a product which differed from the claimed product by substitution of the type and hardness of the aluminum and copper layers (finding 1). Pure aluminum and copper with the claimed hardnesses for roll-bonded layers were known in the art as cited above in ‘686 (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to related art to detail the purity and hardness of the materials and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (finding 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendment and related arguments, see Pg. 5 [3], filed April 27, 206, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of January 28, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding claim rejections. Applicant alleges that Hashimoto does not teach, and teaches away from the claimed copper foil thickness layer, which is incorrect as Hashimoto teaches an overlapping copper thickness of 0.01 mm or more as cited above. The prior art is prior art for all it teaches (MPEP 2158), including the overlapping proportions. Also, according to MPEP 2123 I, a reference maybe relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art (including the overlapping thickness). Applicants’ arguments to secondary references to the thickness are not persuasive, as they are not relied upon by the examiner. Claim 11 is withdrawn as restricted by original presentation (as discussed above), and therefore arguments to its patentability are not addressed herein.
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights