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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites performing steps “without exposing the insulating resin base material to an atmosphere”. This language is indefinite as the resin base material must necessarily be exposed to an atmosphere (even if that atmosphere is a vacuum). It is impossible for the base material to not be exposed to an atmosphere. It is unclear if Applicant actually intends to claim that the resin base material is not removed from the chamber and exposed to a different atmosphere than that in the chamber or if Applicant intends to claim that the steps are performed in the chamber under vacuum. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite. For examination purposes, if the prior art discloses or makes obvious performing the steps under vacuum or under a constant atmosphere or in a single chamber/unit then this will be interpreted as reading upon the claim.
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 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashima et al. (EP 2733177).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 12, Kashima teaches a process for forming a copper laminate printed wiring board comprising: providing an insulating resin base material including filler (0012); a step of pre-treating the resin base material by roughening using UV treatment (0082); and the pre-treatment may be used in combination with a dry sand blasting step (0082) and surface modification steps, such as plasma treatment (0082); then applying first and second copper conductive layers by a wet film formation process (0109); and firing the resultant stacked layer (0086). Kashima fails to teach a specific example wherein the specific steps of first roughening with UV, then sand blasting and finally plasma treatment are performed in this order as the pre-treatment prior to forming the conductive layers.
However, Kashima teaches that these processes may be used in combination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashima’s process by substituting the combination of the three steps for roughening and surface modification in place of the roughening done in Kashima’s exemplary embodiments. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Kashima teaches that all of the pre-treatment processes can be conducted and may be used in combination), and the predictable result of treating the surface to improve adhesion to the conductive layers that are later applied.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the particular order of steps through process optimization. Note that the selection of any order of performing process steps has been held as prima facie obvious (See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
II. Regarding claim 3, Kashima makes obvious claim 2 (see above) and teaches the roughening by UV (see above). Further, claim 3 only sets forth further limitations when the roughening is by plasma treatment (an alternatively recited element in claim 2). Kashima teaches the alternative roughening by UV. Therefore, Kashima makes obvious claim 3.
3. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suenaga et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0243226).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kashima makes obvious claim 1 including roughening by sand blasting (see above), but fails to teach the blasting being dry ice blasting using a nozzle pressure as claimed.
However, Suenaga teaches dry ice blasting for surface roughening (0046) using a nozzle pressure of 0.5 MPa (0131). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashima’s process by use dry ice blasting as disclosed by Suenaga for roughening in place of Kashima’s sand blasting. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Suenaga teaches that dry ice blasting is preferred over sand blasting because the dry ice sublimes and does not remain on the surface and does not require a cleaning step (0045-0046).
4. Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogami (JP 2015/040324, reference is made to the provided English translation).
I. Regarding claim 9, Kashima makes obvious claim 1 (see above), but fails to teach the first conductive layer formed by a dry film formation process.
However, Ogami teaches a similar method for forming copper-clad laminates (see title and abstract) by a surface pre-treatment of a resin (abstract) followed by copper deposition where the first copper deposition is done by sputtering, a type of dry film formation process (see Technical-Field section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashima’s process by having the first conductive layer deposited by sputtering. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Ogami teaches that sputtering improves the adhesion of the metal to the resin surface (4th paragraph of Background Art section).
II. Regarding claim 11, Kashima makes obvious claim 1 (see above), but fails to teach the first conductive layer applied by sputtering and the modification step and first conductive layer step formed in a chamber without exposing the base material to an atmosphere.
However, Ogami teaches a similar method for forming copper-clad laminates (see title and abstract) by a surface pre-treatment of a resin (abstract) followed by copper deposition where the first copper deposition is done by sputtering, a type of dry film formation process (see Technical-Field section). Additionally, Ogami teaches the steps all performed in a chamber (consistent with not exposing the resin base material to an atmosphere) continuously (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashima’s process by performing the deposition of the copper by sputtering and conducting all the steps in a chamber continuously as disclosed by Ogami. One would have been motivated to make these modifications as Ogami teaches that sputtering improves the adhesion of the metal to the resin surface (4th paragraph of Background Art section) and conducting in a continuous operation in a single chamber would yield a more efficient process and avoid contamination between process steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the process including all the steps as claimed including a surface modification which includes both a first plasma treatment with an oxidizing gas including oxygen and a second plasma treatment including a reducing gas including hydrogen after the first plasma treatment.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected.
Claim 8 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
June 26, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights