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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Allowance of December 17, 2025 is withdrawn due to new ground of rejections based on IDS filed by applicant on January 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 an6 3-6are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) as being anticipated by CN 106413248 A with Machine translation submitted by applicant on January 20, 2026.
Machine translated CN teaches a copper foil coated with a roughening treatment layer comprising copper particles having a particle size of 300-600 nm, an antioxidant-treatment layer comprising molybdenum and cobalt in abstract.
Machine translated CN teaches an anchor effect would be improved by increasing the particle size in the last paragraph of page 2 and CN teaches primary particle sizes of 515 nm and 586 nm in examples 1 and 6, respectively, in table 2 of [0168]. Thus, the particle sizes of 515 nm and 586 nm would fall within scope of the recited primary particle size of 0.5-0.9 µm.
Machine translated CN teaches more than one following A (i.e., chromate coating) layer and B layer (i.e., silane coupling agent) on the antioxidant-treatment layer in claim 2. Machine translated CN teaches that the silane coupling agent can be set on the chromate coating in middle of page 5 and the silane coupling agent layer on the chromate coating layer in an upper portion of page 6.
Machine translated CN teaches a resin impregnated roughening treatment layer comprising copper particles in middle of page 4 for figure 1. Further, the recited transitional term “comprising” of claim 1 is an “open” term, in the sense that it leaves the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients, “even in major amounts.” Ex parte Davis and Tuukkanen, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (BPAI 1948). MPEP 2111.03
See also North Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamide Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because the term “comprising” is one of enlargement, it can cause a claim to be broader than the invention. See In re Fenton, 451 F.2d 640, 642 (CCPA 1971). Thus, the instant claim 1 would permit the impregnating resin taught by CN.
Thus, the instant a layered structure of a copper foil/a resin impregnated roughening treatment layer comprising copper particles having the particle having the 6primary particle size of 515 nm or 586 nm /an antioxidant-treatment layer comprising molybdenum and cobalt/a chromate coating/a silane coupling agent taught by CN would meet the instantly recited layers.
Regarding the recited value of gloss Gs (85o) of claim 1, CN teaches all of the recited limitations of claim 1 and thus it would be expected to have the recited value of gloss Gs (85o) inherently.
Since PTO does not have equipment to conduct the test, it is fair to require applicant to shoulder the burden of proving that his material differs from those of CN. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Charles Pfizer & Co. v. FTC, 401 F.2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968). Inherent anticipation does not require that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure, Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Machine translated CN teaches a copper clad laminate B further utilizing a liquid crystal polymer in a bridging paragraph of pages 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 6, Machine translated CN teaches a printing distributing board in middle of page 3.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106413248 A with Machine translation in view of WO 2016/093109 (i.e., JP 6734785 B).
Regarding the recited value of gloss Gs (85o) of claim 1, CN teaches all of the recited limitations of claim 1 and thus it would be expected to have the recited value of gloss Gs (85o) and arithmetic mean height Sa inherently. The recited a gloss Gs (85o) of 60-80 over CN is known in the art. WO teaches treated copper foil having a gloss Gs (85o) of 40-80 in [0019].
Thus, the coated copper foil taught by CN having the art well known gloss Gs (85o) of 40-80 would have been obvious absent showing otherwise.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106413248 A with Machine translation in view of WO 2016/093109 (i.e., JP 6734785 B). as applied to claims 1 and 3-6 above, and further in view of JP 4072431 B2 (April 9, 2008) with Machine translation.
Regarding the recited alternative epoxy insulating resin substrate of claims 4-6, Machine translated JP’431 teaches an epoxy resin varnish on the surface-treated copper foil in example 10 and a copper-clad laminate with carrier copper foil with the epoxy resin in an upper section of page 13.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the epoxy resin varnish taught by Machine translated JP’431 on the surface-treated copper foil of CN in order to provide an insulating property to the surface-treated copper foil and since CN teaches utilization of absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claim 2 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762