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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant, in the “Ito” section on page 6 of the remarks, argue that the instant applicants layers and Ito layers are different. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “intermediate resin layer 36 and lower resin layer 38 are fundamentally different from the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer of the present invention in both their function and their purpose.”) 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).
Furthermore, the applicant generally expresses that the instant application “it is possible to obtain a wiring sheet for three-dimensional molding that is less likely to suffer from appearance defects after the three-dimensional molding process (paragraph [0093]). This superior, advantageous, and unexpected effect is evidenced by the Examples in the Specification.”. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The next two sections, Suzuki and Akutsu, have the same flaws. The applicant is urged to bring the limiting differences from the specification to the claims in order for them to have patentable weight.
For at least these reasons the examiner has maintained the rejection below.
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, 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11405985 B2 – Ito in view of JP 2012123570 A – Suzuki and WO 2018181766 A1 - Akutsu.
Regarding claim 1, Ito is directed towards a heat generating sheet. Ito does teach a pseudo-sheet structure ([Col. 4 Ln. 47] a pseudo-sheet structure 20), including a plurality of conductive linear bodies arranged at an interval ([Col. 4 Ln. 48-49] conductive linear bodies 22), wherein the conductive linear bodies have a wave shape when viewed from above ([Col. 6 Ln. 39-41] the electrically conductive linear bodies 22 are linear bodies formed in a wave pattern, as will be described later), when a thickness of the first layer is T1 ([Col. 21 Ln. 20-23] The intermediate resin layer 36 preferably has a thickness of, for example, from 5 to 1,300 μm, more preferably from 10 to 1,000 μm, and still more preferably from 15 to 900 μm,), a thickness of the second layer is T2 ([Col. 21 Ln. 49-53] The lower resin layer 38 preferably has a thickness of, for example, from 5 to 1,300 μm in, more preferably from 10 to 1,000 μm, and still more preferably from 15 to 900 μm, in terms of improving the thermal adhesiveness to a molded article.), a thickness of the pseudo-sheet structure is T3 ([Col. 17 Ln. 10-13] the thickness of the surface layers of the pseudo-sheet 20 refers to the thickness thereof in the region where the pseudo-sheet structure 20 (namely, the electrically conductive linear bodies 22) is not embedded and [Col. 19 Ln. 53-54] the electrically conductive linear bodies 22 each having a diameter of from 7 μm to 75 μm), and a following equation is satisfied: 1< (T1+T2) /T3 <= 10. (Since the sizes of the mentioned layers are a range, the examiner uses the lower bounds of each range: 1< (15+15) /7 )<=10 approx. equals 1< 4.29 <=10 (units were removed for simplification.)).
Ito does not expressly teach a first embedding layer, and a second embedding layer, the pseudo-sheet structure being sandwiched between the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer, and a storage shear modulus at 23C of each of the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer is from 1.3x10^5 to 3.0x10^6 Pa.. Although Ito does not teach the embedded layers Ito does teach at least two layers on each side of the pseudo-sheet.
Suzuki is directed towards an electrode sheet. Suzuki does teach a first embedding layer ([0065] the resin layer 7), and a second embedding layer ([0065] the resin layer 14), and the pseudo-sheet structure being sandwiched between the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer (Figure 5(a-d), shows the conductive lines (4) is between the two resin layers (7 and 14)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second layers of Ito to be embedded layers and have the conductors sandwiched between them because the layers will allow for protection of the conductive lines/pseudo-sheet.
Akutsu is directed towards a semiconductor device. Akutsu does teach a storage shear modulus at 23C of each of the layer is from 1.3x10^5 to 3.0x10^6 Pa ([0079] If the storage shear modulus G'(23) of the first adhesive layer is 1.0 × 10 NER (X)⁴ Pa or greater (due to the machine translation NER was generated in place of X)).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the resin of Akutsu resin of Ito. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito to include a resin with a storage shear modulus at 23C of each of the layer is from 1.3x10^5 to 3.0x10^6 Pa because the resin of Akutsu allows for a protection from pressure. Furthermore, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ito does teach a shape of a cross-section of each of the conductive linear bodies is a round shape having a diameter of 7 to 75 μm (Figure 2 shows a round linear body and [Col. 19 Ln. 53-54] the electrically conductive linear bodies 22 each having a diameter of from 7 μm to 75 μm).
Regarding claim 4, Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ito and Akutsu does not expressly teach the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer are curable.
Suzuki does teach the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer are curable ([0023] Furthermore, thermosetting resins or resins cured with active energy rays may be blended with general-purpose thermoplastic resins.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito to include the first embedding layer and the second embedding layer are curable because curing a resin will turn it from a liquid to a solid in order to form around the pseudo-sheet and provide protection.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11405985 B2 – Ito, JP 2012123570 A – Suzuki and WO 2018181766 A1 - Akutsu. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200010169 A1 - Slane.
Regarding claim 3, Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does not expressly teach the first layer and the second layer have identical compositions.
Slane is directed towards a heated floor panel. Slane does teach the first layer and the second layer have identical compositions ([0011] Stacks of structural layers 16 and 20 can be a reinforced polymer, such as a carbon fiber or fiberglass impregnated with a resin system such as a thermoplastic (polyether ether ketone, polycarbonate, polyphenylene sulfide, polyetherimide) or a thermoset (epoxy, phenolic, bismaieimide, benzoxazine)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu to include the first layer and the second layer have identical compositions because the identical composition of the first and second layer (Slane) will protect the pseudo-sheet (Ilto) from increase blunt impact resistance [0008]
Regarding claim 5, Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does teach the limitations of claim 1. Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu does not expressly teach at least one of a first resin layer adjacent to the first embedding layer and a second resin layer adjacent to the second embedding layer.
Slane is directed towards a heated floor panel. Slane does teach at least one of a first resin layer adjacent to the first layer and a second resin layer adjacent to the second layer ([0011] Stacks of structural layers 16 and 20 provide reinforcement to assembly 10. Stacks of structural layers 16 and 20 can be a reinforced polymer, such as a carbon fiber or fiberglass impregnated with a resin system such as a thermoplastic).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu to include at least one of a first resin layer adjacent to the first layer and a second resin layer adjacent to the second layer because the stacking layers of resin provide protection for the heaters.
Regarding claim 6, Ito, Suzuki, Akutsu, and Slane does teach the limitations of claim 5. Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu, and Slane does not expressly teach at least one of a surface on a first layer side of the first resin layer and a surface on a second layer side of the second resin layer is releasable.
Slane does teach at least one of a surface on a first layer side of the first resin layer and a surface on a second layer side of the second resin layer is releasable ([0009] Assembly 10 can be held together by film adhesives (not shown) as needed between the components.). Although the term adhesive is broad there is well known adhesives that are releasable, included but not limited to, as seen in Ito ([Col. 16 Ln. 13- 17] When the release layer 34 is provided, it is possible to prevent a breakage of the pseudo-sheet structure 20 due to handling, and a reduction in the adhesive strength of the adhesive layer 32. The release layer 34 is peeled off from the sheet 10, when subjecting the sheet 10 to three-dimensional molding. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ito, Suzuki, and Akutsu to include a at least one of a surface on a first layer side of the first resin layer and a surface on a second layer side of the second resin layer is releasable because with the stackable resin layers (Slane) would be attached and be able to remove without damaging the heating layer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
