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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Phan USPA_20110305838_A1.
1. Regarding Claim 1, Phan discloses depositing nanoparticles (corresponds to claimed average particle diameter of 1 to 100 nm), such as silica (paragraph 0036), directly on and in contact with a part of the surface of a substrate (Abstract; Fig. 1A) that is made of aluminum (corresponds to claimed metal foil) (paragraph 0108).
2. Regarding Claim 2, Phan discloses having Van der Waals forces between its substrate (corresponds to claimed metal foil) and its silica particles (paragraph 0057).
3. Regarding Claim 3, Phan discloses that “at least one part of the surface of a substrate” can have said silica particles (Abstract) while the rest would be exposed. Furthermore, Phan discloses that its silica particles are spherical and in point contact with its substrate (corresponds to claimed metal foil) (Fig. 1A).
4. Regarding Claim 4, based on the figures, it seemingly suggests a range of less than 60% (Figs.).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kajita USPA_20220002522_A1.
5. Regarding Claim 1, Kajita discloses a metal foil (element 3 of Fig. 1) with inorganic particles (element 9 in Fig. 1) in contact with it (paragraph 0024); wherein said inorganic particles can be silica (paragraph 0030) with a particle size of 40 nm (paragraph 0027).
6. Regarding Claim 2, Kajita does not disclose the claimed electrostatic attractive force. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that this will inherently be found given that Kajita discloses all of the claimed limitations.
7. Regarding Claim 3, Kajita discloses portions of said metal foil (element 3 in Fig. 1) not having its silica particles in contact with it and moreover discloses said particles to be spherical (element 9 in Fig. 1).
8. Regarding Claim 4, based on the figure 1, it seemingly suggests a range of less than 60% (Fig. 1).
9. Regarding Claim 5, Kajita discloses its metal foil can be a copper foil (paragraph 0040).
10. Regarding Claim 7, Kajita discloses a wiring board (corresponds to claimed electronic component) (Title) that comprises the afore-described metal foil with insulating layers (paragraphs 0006, 0043, Claim 8) with the afore-described silica particles there-between them (Fig. 1).
11. Regarding Claim 8, Kajita discloses said metal foil can be an electrolytic copper foil or rolled copper foil (paragraph 0040).
12. Regarding Claim 9, Kajita discloses that the surface roughness of its metal foil can be 0.5 microns or less (paragraph 0041).
13. Regarding Claims 11, 13, 14, those said particles that are in contact with said metal foil would be at the interface in a planar format between the insulating layer and metal foil and nor are said particles overlapping on a main surface of said foil (Fig. 1).
14. Regarding Claim 12, Kajita discloses a large curvature in its silica particle that is in contact with said metal foil with a known area (element 9 in Fig. 1).
15. Regarding Claim 15, Kajita discloses a concavo-convex surface to its silica particles (paragraph 0024) which will correspond to the claimed neck portion.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita USPA_20220002522_A1, as applied to Claims 1-5 and 7-9.
16. Regarding Claim 10, Kajita discloses a ratio of particles in the range of particle size greater than 0μm and 0.5μm or less is preferably 60% or more in terms of number ratio. In particular, 70% or more and 90% or less is preferred (paragraph 0024), with the average being 40 nm (paragraph 0027).
17. Regarding Claim 6, Kajita discloses having clumps (corresponds to claimed aggregates) of its silica particles (paragraph 0025). Although the claimed particle size is not disclosed, Kajita links particle size with adhesion strength (paragraph 0027). As such, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize this as a result-effective variable and to vary the particle size according to the desired adhesion strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights