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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 requires the limitation of “an area of the second conductive adhesive doped with iron…” in line 17 and should require “an area of the second conductive adhesive layer doped with iron…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-4; 7-10) 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 1 requires the limitations of “a conductive adhesive layer, comprising a first conductive adhesive layer disposed on the first device contact surface, and a second conductive adhesive layer disposed on the second device contact surface; wherein an area of the first conductive adhesive layer doped with silver conductive particles is less than an area of the second conductive adhesive doped with iron conductive particles.”
Firstly, claim 1 appears to indicate the first conductive adhesive layer has silver conductive particles and the second conductive adhesive layer has iron particles. However, the claim fails to positively recite these particles being in their respective conductive adhesive layers such that there is no limitation which specifically states “the first conductive adhesive layer comprises silver conductive particles” and “the second conductive adhesive layer comprises iron particles.”
[AltContent: textbox (Iron Area)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Silver Area)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Second Adhesive Layer)][AltContent: textbox (First Adhesive Layer)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]Secondly, the limitation of “wherein an area of the first conductive adhesive layer doped with silver conductive particles is less than an area of the second conductive adhesive doped with iron conductive particles” provides confusing language such that it appears as though applicant intends to claim the first conductive adhesive layer has an area which is less than the area of the second conductive adhesive layer. However, the claim does not read this way. Instead, the claim appears to state the area of the first conductive adhesive layer which is doped with silver particles is less than the area of the second adhesive layer which is doped with iron conductive particles. This interpretation of the limitation as written in the claim is shown in the figure above.
As shown, the area of the silver particles is less than the area of the iron particles yet the areas of the two adhesive layers are the same which is different from the area of the first conductive adhesive layer being less than the area of the second adhesive layer.
Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is to be interpreted as “a conductive adhesive layer, comprising a first conductive adhesive layer disposed on the first device contact surface, and a second conductive adhesive layer disposed on the second device contact surface; wherein the first conductive adhesive layer comprises silver conductive particles and the second conductive adhesive layer comprises iron particles; and wherein an area of the first conductive adhesive layer disposed on the first device contact surface is less than an area of the second conductive adhesive layer disposed on the second device contact surface” such that this appears to be applicant’s intent (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0042]).
Claims 2-3 and 9 are 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 2 requires “wherein the conductive adhesive layer is centrally disposed on the device contact surface, and an area of the conductive adhesive layer is less than an area of the device contact surface.”
Claim 3 requires “wherein a ratio of the area of the conductive adhesive layer and the area of the device contact surface is any value between 1/3 and ½.”
Claim 9 requires “a dust ring disposed on the device contact surface, surrounding a peripheral edge of the device contact surface, and configured to prevent dust from entering after the external device is assembled with the conductive foam.”
Each of these claims depend from claim 1 which requires a first/second conductive adhesive layer and a first/second device contact surface and each of the claims above refer to a conductive adhesive layer and a device contact surface. However, the claims fail to define whether the adhesive layers and the contact surface are the first or the second adhesive layers/contact surfaces or both the first and second adhesive layers/contact surfaces.
Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claims are to be interpreted as provided below:
Claim 2 states “wherein the first conductive adhesive layer is centrally disposed on the first device contact surface, and an area of the first conductive adhesive layer is less than an area of the first device contact surface and wherein the second conductive adhesive layer is centrally disposed on the second device contact surface, and an area of the second conductive adhesive layer is less than an area of the second device contact surface.” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0051]; Fig. 2)
Claim 3 requires “wherein a ratio of the area of the first conductive adhesive layer and the area of the first device contact surface is any value between 1/3 and ½ and wherein a ratio of the area of the second conductive adhesive layer and the area of the second device contact surface is any value between 1/3 and ½.” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0051]; Fig. 2)
Claim 9 requires “a dust ring disposed on the first device contact surface and the second device contact surface, surrounding a peripheral edge of the first and second device contact surfaces, and configured to prevent dust from entering after the external device is assembled with the conductive foam.” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0065]; Fig. 4).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 requires “wherein the conductive adhesive layer comprises a plurality of conductive adhesive sheets arranged at intervals, and at least two of the conductive adhesive sheets are doped with different metal conductive particles.” This is already required by claim 1 (See 35 U.S.C 112 rejection of claim 1 above). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 5-6, applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcomes the rejection in view of Ye and Lunt. Specifically, neither reference teaches two adhesive layers doped with different metal particles having different areas such that the area of the silver doped adhesive area is less than the iron doped adhesive.
The examiner concedes in that neither Ye nor Lunt teaches the specific adhesive area ratio when doped with different metal particles. Therefore, the rejection of 11/12/2025 is withdrawn.
However, the claim amendments have raised new 35 U.S.C 112 issues as discussed above. Firstly, the amendments to claim 1 still do not positively recite silver and iron particles in their respective adhesive layers. Secondly, the amendment regarding the areas of the adhesive layers do not specifically require the ratio as argued by applicant (See rejection above). Additionally, claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected such that they do not indicate which adhesive layer and device contact surface the claims refer to. Lastly, claim 7 is rejected for failing to further limit the teachings of claim 1.
The current rejection is made FINAL in view of the amendments to the claims.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights