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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “is provided” in both lines 2 and 5, is language that can be implied.
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(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) 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.
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 (original 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grey et al. (US 4452664 A) teaches a film of copper on an aluminum carrier sheet with a peel strength of 0.1-2 pounds per inch (Abstract).
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