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 § 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. Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite, because it discloses “ A cold formed flex circuit, comprising: an electronic circuit connected to a substrate; and a material selectively plated on one or more areas on the substrate when the substrate is in a planar state ; wherein the one or more areas selectively plated with the material are cold formed into one or more features in the substrate when the substrate is moved from the planar state to a non-planar state ” (lines 1-7 ; emphasis added). The claim is explicitly directed to a product ( i.e. a “cold formed flex circuit”) and not at all to a method. Accordingly, the recitation of the product being in two different temporal states ( “ when … in a planar state” and “ when the substrate is moved from the planar state to a non-planar state ”) is confusing and indefinite because the scope or metes and bounds of the claim cannot at all be ascertained. Is the product intended to be planar or is it intended to be non-planar? It clearly cannot be both, and therefore the scope is indefinite. Please also note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. As such, the indication that the material is “plated” and that the areas are “cold formed” is not understood to carry any patentable weight, as a metal material which was sputtered or chemically deposited would have the exact same structure as one which is plated, and areas which were thermoformed would have the same structure as areas which were cold formed. Further, “As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (MPEP 2113). Therefore, as best understood, the claimed product is held to intend something akin to “ A cold formed flex circuit, comprising: an electronic circuit connected to a substrate; and a material selectively plated (or otherwise attached) on one or more areas on the substrate when the substrate is in a planar state ; wherein the one or more areas selectively plated with the material are cold formed into one or more non-planar features in the substrate when the substrate is moved from the planar state to a non-planar state ”. Claims 2-4 are rejected as inde finite by virtue of their dependence upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1. Claim 3 is also rejected as indefinite. The claim discloses “ The flex circuit according to claim 1, wherein the material comprises an additional layer of copper. ” (lines 1-2 ; emphasis added). This language is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis, as there was no first layer of copper disclosed in claim 1 and therefore cannot be an “ additional layer of copper”. Claim 15 is also rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “ The method according to claim 5 , wherein the step of forcing the cold die set against the flex circuit in the planar state, cold forming the flex circuit in the planar state into a non-planar state is completed in less than or equal to 30 seconds ” (lines 1-3 ; emphasis added). There is a lack of antecedent basis for this “step of forcing the cold die set” limitation, as there is nothing in claim 5 which discloses the step itself or the “cold die set”. Claims 6 and 7 disclose such features however. As such, it is not clear if a “cold die set” and step of its use were inadvertently omitted from claim 5, or if claim 15 should instead depend from claim 6 or 7. Accordingly the scope or metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and it is therefore indefinite. NOTE : C laims 1-4 and 15 have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b ) rejections, above. 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. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipa ted by Nomura et al. (US 2006/0215377 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Nomura discloses a cold formed flex circuit (Title; Abstract) , comprising: an electronic circuit (12) connected to a substrate (10) (fig. 1b; pars. 0037 and 0039) ; and a material (15, 16a-16c) selectively plated on one or more areas (see figs. 3-4) on the substrate when the substrate is in a planar state (figs. 3-4; pars. 0042-0043) ; wherein the one or more areas selectively plated with the material are cold formed (folded) into one or more features in the substrate when the substrate is moved from the planar state to a non-planar state (fig. 7; par. 0053) . NOTE : all claimed instances of elements being “cold formed” or of “cold forming” are being interpreted in light of the state of the art and the original disclosure of the instant application , such that cold forming is apparently simply forming or shaping. In the metal working art, any working or forming that is less than about 1/3 to ½ of the melting point of the metal is also considered cold forming. Moreover, t here is no special step or device disclosed in the specification for cold forming and there is no discussion of the desired temperature or how cold forming would be distinct fro m simply shaping or bending or folding or the like without melting the materials being worked . Regarding claim 3 , Nomura discloses the flex circuit according to claim 1, wherein the material comprises an additional layer of copper (par. 0042) . Regarding claim 4 , Nomura discloses the flex circuit according to claim 1, wherein the one or more features is a bend, coining, or a shape formed in the substrate (fig. 7; par. 0053) . Regarding claim 5 , Nomura discloses a method for cold forming a flex circuit (Title; Abstract) , comprising: selectively plating a material (15, 16a-16c) on one or more areas of the flex circuit (12) when the flex circuit is in a planar state (figs. 1b and 3-4; pars. 0037, 0039 and 0042-0043) ; and cold forming (folding without adding heat) one or more features in the flex circuit at the one or more ar eas selectively plated with the material such that the flex circuit is moved from the planar state to a non-planar state (fig. 7; par. 0053) . Regarding claim 9 , Nomura discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the one or more features is a bend, coining, or a shape cold formed in the flex circuit in the non-planar state (fig. 7; par. 0053) . Regarding claim 10 , Nomura discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the flex circuit includes an electronic circuit connected to a substrate (10) (fig. 1b; pars. 0039-0041) Regarding claim 12 , Nomura discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the material is metal (par. 0042) . Regarding claim 13 , Nomura discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the material is copper (par. 0042) . 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 of this title, 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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura, in view of Riesner ( DE 4237083 A1 ). Regarding claims 2 (and 11) , Nomura discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 (and 10). Nomura, however, does not explicitly disclose that the substrate comprises a polyamide layer, an adhesive layer, and a metal layer . Riesner teaches that it is well known to provide a similar cold formed flex circuit and manufacturing method (Title; Abstract) wherein the substrate comprises a polyamide layer, an adhesive layer, and a metal layer ( Abstract; fig s . 1-2 ; claim 7 ). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Nomura to incorporate the preferred material layers of the substrate of Riesner . POSITA would have realized that substrate materials can be easily and readily selected based upon their well-known properties and functional capabilities to achieve the desired strength, rigidity, flexibility, dielectric nature, conductivity, or any other well understood materials property . Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special substrate materials or steps of using the substrate w ere devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old product (claim 2) or method (claim 11) of Nomura with the well-known flex circuit and method of its manufacture of Riesner . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Additionally, it is not likely that the preferred material and number of substrate layers of the product being formed would have any bearing or effect upon the steps of the method or its outcome. I f the material of Riesner were incorporated in the intended product, the method of Nomura would be performed in the exact same manner as originally disclosed by Nomura and would have the same predictable outcome. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura , in view of Landi (US 4,944,087 ). Regarding claim 6 , Nomura discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5 . Nomura , however, does not explicitly disclose placing the flex circuit in the planar state on a machine with a cold die set attached to a clamping mechanism; and forcing the cold die set against the flex circuit in the planar state, cold forming the flex circuit in the planar state into a non-planar state. Landi teaches that it is well known to perform a similar cold forming method (Title; Abstract; fig. 5), including the steps of: placing the flex circuit (18: figs. 2-3) in the planar state on a machine (20) with a cold die set attached to a clamping mechanism (annotated fig. 4, below ) ; and forcing the cold die set against the flex circuit in the planar state, cold forming the flex circuit in the planar state into a non-planar state (figs. 4-5; col. 4, lines 35-43) . Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Nomura to incorporate the use of a cold forming machine with dies and clamping mechanism of Landi . POSITA would have realized that forming dies and molds can be easily and readily incorporated in lieu of hand working to achieve the desired speed of processing throughput and manufacturing precision ( Landi : col. 3, lines 47-50) . Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special machine, die or clamping mechanism was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Nomura with the well-known machine of Landi . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Regarding claim 7 , Nomura in view of Landi teaches the method of claim 6 as detailed above, and Landi further teaches that it is well known that the cold die set comprises one or more dies (two shown) , each having one or more complementary features (30) matching the one or more features of the flex circuit in the non-planar state ( fig. 4; col. 4, lines 54-61 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Nomura in view of Landi teaches the method of claim 7 as detailed above, and Landi further teaches that it is well known that the step of forcing the cold die set against the flex circu it in the planar state includes the step of cold forming the one or more features in the flex circuit in the non-planar state with the one or more complementary features of the one or more dies (fig. 4; col. 4, lines 35-43 and 54-61) . Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura, in view of Rendek , Jr. et al. ( US 2009/0185357 A1 ). Regarding claim 14 , Nomura discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5 . Nomura, however, does not explicitly disclose that the flex circuit is a battery door flex circuit. Rendek teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method of manufacturing a flex circuit (Title; Abstract), wherein the flex circuit is a battery door flex circuit (fig s . 2 and 8-10 ; par. 0043 ). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Nomura to incorporate the preferred intended application of the product being formed of Rendek . POSITA would have realized that the method of Nomura can be easily and readily used to manufacture any number of flex circuit devices to achieve the desired functionality, such as manufacturing a custom fitted and small footprint housing or door . Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Nomura with the well-known battery door formation of Rendek . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Additionally, it is not likely that the preferred use of the product as a battery door would have any bearing or effect upon the steps of the method or its outcome. I f the battery housing of Rendek were incorporated in the the method of Nomura , said method would be performed in the exact same manner as originally disclosed by Nomura and would have the same predictable outcome. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura, in view of Lai et al. ( US 2024/0074063 A1 ). Regarding claim 15 , Nomura discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5 . Nomura, however, does not explicitly disclose that in the step of forcing the cold die set against the flex circuit in the planar state, cold forming the flex circuit in the planar state into a non-planar state is completed in less than or equal to 30 seconds Lai teaches that it is well known to perform a cold forming method, wherein in the step of forcing the cold die set against the flex circuit in the planar state, cold forming the flex circuit in the planar state into a non-planar state is completed in less than or equal to 30 seconds (30 seconds: fig s . 6-7 ; par. 0033 ). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Nomura to incorporate the preferred amount of time for cold forming of Lai . POSITA would have realized that the folding of Nomura can be easily and readily be achieved in 30 seconds or less to achieve the desired formed shape . Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special forming step was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method or product of Nomura with the well-known 30 second timeline of Lai . This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Colella et al. (US 2005/0227410 A1 ) is held to disclose most , if not all, of the limitations of at least claim s 1 and 5 . The Colella reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5609 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sunil Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3460 . 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. /JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729