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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 19, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/032000 to Takashima, with US Pub. No. 2021/0313095 cited as the English equivalent, in view of USPN 4,374,893 to Arsac.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10, Takashima teaches a composite body including an elongated adhesive body and a plurality of linear members being stuck around the adhesive body (Takashima, Abstract). Takashima teaches that the term “linear” is a concept that includes not only a straight line, a curved line and the like, but also a state where a material can be bent in various directions and angles like a yarn (Id., paragraph 0026). Takashima teaches that the plurality of linear members may include an electric wire, which is inherently conductive (Id., paragraph 0017, claim 8). Takashima does not appear to require the composite to be covered with an insulating material (see Id., Fig. 1). Takashima teaches that the linear members are spirally stuck around the adhesive body (Id., paragraph 0033).
Takashima teaches a substantially similar or identical structure as claimed, wherein the linear members may include an electric wire. Note that the properties of electric wires are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, including being electrically conductive. Takashima does not appear to teach the claimed electrically conductive threadlike member. However, Arsac teaches textiles with improved conducting properties comprising yarns and fibers based on synthetic polymers, such as a polyamide, with permanent conducting properties, which possess a uniform continuous layer consisting of at least 3% copper suphide (Arsac, Abstract). Arsac teaches that the ratio of the electrical resistance after ageing for 400 hours in an atmosphere kept at a relative humidity of 70% and a temperature of 60ºC and the initial resistance of the treated textile is between 1 and 10 (Id., column 1 line 28 to column 2 line 3, column 2 lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite body of Takashima, wherein the linear members comprise the copper sulphide coated polyamide yarns, as taught by Arsac, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite body comprising electrically conducting yarns known in the art as comprising improved permanent conducting properties suitable for the intended application. Note that based on the structure of the prior art combination, the composite appears to inherently be configured to provide electrical conductivity in a longitudinal direction and 360º in a circumferential direction as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches that the adhesive body is preferably yarn-like, as the yarn-like adhesive body can deform following deformation of the composite body (Takashima, paragraph 0054, claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches that the adhesive body includes a core material and an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer may cover the entire surface of the core material (Takashima, paragraphs 0059-0062, claims 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches that the adhesive body is preferably a pressure-sensitive adhesive body (Takashima, paragraph 0052, claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches that the plurality of linear members may include an electric wire (Takashima, paragraph 0017, claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches that the thickness of the linear member is not limited, and that the thickness of the adhesive body is not limited, and a thickness suitable for the number of linear members to be stuck or the intended use can be selected (Takashima, paragraphs 0035, 0041, 0057, 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite body of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thickness of the adhesive body in comparison to the linear members, such as claimed, as suggested by Takashima, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite body having the desired thickness to accommodate a suitable number of linear members, based on the intended application of the composite body.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Arsac and DE 3019151 to Lenards, as evidenced by the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10, the prior art combination appears to teach the claimed structure. However, in the event it is shown that the claimed invention requires “spirally attached” to comprise the structure such as shown in Fig. 2 in Applicants’ specification which is formed by twisting the body and member together, Lenards teaches an electrically-conducting yarn consisting of a core of a few continuous synthetic textile filaments and metallic wires, wherein the core contains rayon filaments, and the rayon and metallic wires are twisted together (Lenards, Abstract). Lenards teaches that the electrically conductive yarn is simple and cost-effective to produce, has a stretch and surface behavior comparable to conventional textile yarns, and has high electrical conductivity which is not significantly reduced even if surface cracks occur (Id., paragraph 0007). Lenards teaches that the rayon threads and copper wires are twisted together which prevents any displacement of the rayon threads relative to the copper wires (Id., paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite body of the prior art combination, wherein the core material and linear members are twisted together, as taught by Lenards, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite body having a structure known in the art to predictably prevent displacement of the yarn-like adhesive body and linear members, such that the body has sufficient stretch and surface behavior. Based on the invention of the prior art combination and Applicants’ specification, such a structure would appear to be configured as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights