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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species IA, in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “claims 1-20 all recite the first protective layer and do overlap in scope.”. This is not found persuasive because not overlapping in scope does not mean there can be no common claim limitations. The invention shown in Fig. 1B is based on the cross-section indicated in Fig. 1A. The invention shown in Fig. 2B is based on the cross-section indicated in Fig. 2A. It is deemed clear these are distinct structural arrangements, with different structural features. The two inventions as claimed are distinct because Invention I does not claim a first electronic unit and an electronic unit, and Invention II does not claim a driving element disposed on a connection pad.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West (US2013/0105837A1); Tong (US2013/0105837A1) is provided as extrinsic evidence).
West discloses the claimed invention as follows (see Fig. 12 and [0037]):
Claim 1. An electronic device (50), comprising:
a circuit substrate (56), comprising a connection pad (60);
a conductive adhesive (70), covering the connection pad;
a driving element (55), disposed on the connection pad, and electrically connected to the circuit substrate through the conductive adhesive; and
a first protective layer (74; see [0038]), covering a part of the conductive adhesive.
Claim 2. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein there is a distance between a lateral edge of the conductive adhesive close to the first protective layer and a lateral edge of the driving element close to the first protective layer. See Fig. 12. The lateral edges of the conductive adhesive 70 are spaced from the lateral edges of driving element 55.
Claim 3. The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the distance is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm. As shown in Fig. 12, the conductive adhesive 80 is between 8 and 12 microns thick. See also Fig. 15 and [0042]. Discussing Fig. 18, [0045] further discloses various thicknesses and distances, the largest of which is 1000 microns, i.e. 1 mm. It is readily apparent the claimed distance is less than 5 mm.
Claim 4. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a reflectivity of the first protective layer is greater than or equal to 90%. The HR material (forming layer 74) has a reflectivity of at least 85 percent, “for example 94 percent” ([0046]). As further evidence, [0047] mentions the KER-2010-DAM material. Tong mentions he same material, in [0042], and states it has a reflectivity of at least 90 percent.
Claim 5. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a material of the first protective layer comprises a silicon-based colloid. See discussion of the KER-2010-DAM material, and the further detail that “the HR material may comprise silicone and a titanium dioxide powder, where the titanium dioxide powder is suspended in the silicone.” This is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a silicon-based colloid.
Claim 6. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first protective layer further covers a part of the driving element. See Fig. 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights