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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 2013/0251970 A1) in view of Takashi et al. (Machine Translation of JP 2015047856 A).
Regarding claims 1-18, Aoki discloses an electronic component package/carrier tape/tray comprising a multilayered resin sheet, comprising layers comprising mainly thermoplastic resin A with an average thickness of 2 to 50 µm and layers comprising mainly thermoplastic resin B, wherein thermoplastic resin A is preferably ABS and thermoplastic resin B is preferably polystyrene or polycarbonate (abstract, [0002], [0010]). In the embodiments disclosed in Example 7, the layers are alternating and comprising ABS as thermoplastic resin A and HIPS as thermoplastic resin B and all layers average 32 µm (i.e. an electronic device packaging sheet provided with a substrate sheet in which a substrate layer A and a substrate layer B are alternatively laminated, wherein the thickness of an individual substrate layer A is overlapping 10-60 µm, the thickness of an individual substrate layer B is overlapping 1-50 µm, the substrate layer A and the substrate layer B comprise a different thermoplastic resin as a main component; the substrate layer A comprises an ABS based resin as a main component; the substrate layer B comprises a thermoplastic resin other than an ABS-based resin as a main component; a molded article comprising the electronic device packaging sheet; wherein the molded article is a container; wherein the molded article is a carrier tape)([0036]).
Aoki does not disclose that an average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer A is greater than an average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer B or that the average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer A is 1.001 times or more the average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer B.
Takashi discloses a packaging material for electronic components, such as a carrier tape, comprising a sheet, comprising alternating layers A (corresponding to instant layer B) comprising polystyrene and B (corresponding to instant layer A) that may comprise ABS-based resin, comprising 21 to 1001 layers, wherein the ratio of thickness of layer B (corresponding to instant layer A) to layer A (corresponding to instant layer B) is 0.45 or more to 4 or less (i.e. overlapping an average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer A is greater than an average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer B; the average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer A is 1.001 times or more the average value of the thickness of an individual substrate layer B)(abstract, [0002], [0005], [0009]-[0018]), wherein the sheet has excellent impact resistance, folding resistance, burr suppressing properties and good formability ([0005]).
Aoki and Takashi are analogous art because they both teach about sheets for packaging/carrier tapes for electronic components. It would have been obvious to apply the ratio of layer thickness of Takashi to the sheet of Aoki in order to provide a packaging having excellent impact resistance, folding resistance, burr suppressing properties and good formability and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known design in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2, the number of alternating layers is 10 (Aoki [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782