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 .
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn as a result of the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the amended claims are allowable because Maruyama in view of Hasegawa allegedly “does not have the configuration to be actively displaced . . . .” 2025.06.20 Remarks at 8. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., active displacement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Because Hasegawa does teach displacement by pressing in a direction toward an inspection target object as correctly pointed out by the applicant--“Hasegawa’s probe element 84 deforms in a depressed direction when pressed against the liquid crystal panel 12,” 2025.06.20 Remarks at 8--the amended claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Document No. Japanese Patent Document No. JP2000214184A (provided by applicant via IDS) to Hasegawa et al.
Regarding claim 1, a flexible substrate, comprising: one end portion (¶ [0026] discloses two different end portions, one the front-end portion and the other the rear-end portion; see figure 3); the other end portion (¶ [0026] discloses two different end portions, one the front-end portion and the other the rear-end portion; see figure 3); and a pattern portion formed at least between the one end portion and the other end portion (figure 3, wiring portions 46), wherein the pattern portion has a tongue piece (figure 6 the alternation between slits/notches 54 and the wiring portions 46 makes the wiring portion a tongue-shaped piece) formed by a notch (slits 54) and is configured to be displaced by pressing in a direction toward an inspection target object (probe element 84) and electrically connected to the inspection target object (figure 3 wiring portions 46 contact electrode portions 14).
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, wherein the tongue piece is provided with a plurality of portions electrically connected to the inspection target object (figure 3 element 46 can contact the element under test at any portion along its length).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, wherein at the one end portion, a line extending from the pattern portion and a line of a member attached to the one end portion are configured to be electrically connected to each other in a state of being positioned on the same straight line (figure 7 the wiring portions 46 are electrically connected to the chip 52 in a straight way; see also ¶¶ [0018]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, wherein the notch surrounds at least a part of an area including a part of the pattern portion (figure 6 the alternation between slits/notches 54 and the wiring portions 46 makes the wiring portion a tongue-shaped piece), which is configured to be electrically connected to the inspection target object (the test could not be performed otherwise).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, wherein facing edge portions of the tongue piece are configured to be displaced relatively to each other by the notch (“the area of the probe element is independently deformed by the slit so as to compressively deform the elastic body”).
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) 3, 4, 6, & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Japanese Patent Document No. JP2000131342A (provided by applicant via IDS) to Maruyama et al.
Regarding clam 3, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the tongue piece is formed at an end portion of a signal line.
However, Maruyama teaches wherein the tongue piece is formed at an end portion of a signal line (figure 20(b) the tongue-shaped element finishes at the contact 12A and therefore the contact 12A is the end portion of a signal line).
It 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 to combine the tongue piece location of Maruyama with the substrate of Hasegawa because the applicant has not disclosed any particular purpose or criticality for the location of the tongue piece formation and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 37 C.C.P.A. 1026, 86 U.S.P.Q. 70, 181 F.2d 1019 (1950).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa teaches the flexible substrate according to claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the pattern portion is provided with a plurality of through holes for electrically connecting a side electrically connected to the inspection target object and a side opposite to the side electrically connected to the inspection target object.
However, Maruyama teaches wherein the pattern portion is provided with a plurality of through holes for electrically connecting a side electrically connected to the inspection target object and a side opposite to the side electrically connected to the inspection target object (¶ [0016]: “According to a fifth aspect of the present invention, in the contactor for an electronic component according to any one of the second to fourth aspects, the opening is any one of a slit, an oblong hole, and a rectangular cut.”).
It 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 to combine the plurality of through holes of Maruyama with the substrate of Hasegawa in order to provide redundant connections, thereby decreasing the probability of operational downtime due to a single bad connection.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa teaches an inspection jig, comprising: the flexible substrate according to claim 1; but does not teach explicitly an extendable member, wherein the extendable member presses a back side of a region including a portion electrically connected to the inspection target object, whereby the tongue piece is electrically connected to the inspection target object.
However, Maruyama teaches an extendable member (31-7), wherein the extendable member presses a back side of a region including a portion electrically connected to the inspection target object, whereby the tongue piece is electrically connected to the inspection target object (¶¶ [0016]-[0017], figure 24: the extendable element 31-7 allows the tongue to electrically connect to the other member in response to air or a fluid).
It 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 to combine the extendable member of Maruyama with the jig of Hasegawa in order to allow for connection when medium-based obstacles might otherwise prevent a solid connection.
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa in view of Maruyama teaches the inspection jig according to claim 6, and Maruyama further teaches comprising a first movable member, wherein the inspection target object is brought close to the flexible substrate via the first movable member, and the tongue piece is brought close to the inspection target object by the extendable member (figure 24: it is clear that the device 14A is held and brought into contact with the flexible substrate 11-1; otherwise, the test could not be conducted).
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 Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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 P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857