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 § 102
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 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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey (2007/0235209).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bailey (Fig. 3) discloses a wiring member-equipped adherend, comprising: an adherend (10) including an attached surface; a first sheet (9) overlapped with the attached surface; a second sheet (8) overlapped with the first sheet; a wire-like transmission member (6) located between the first sheet and the second sheet; and an adhesive agent (resin in each layer 7-10) bonding the first sheet, the second sheet, and the adherend at an end portion that does not overlap the wire-like transmission member in a plan view of the adherend (Fig. 3B), wherein a void is formed in the first sheet (each layer 7-10 formed as woven layer not solid layer, therefore void is formed each layer), wherein the void extends from a first surface of the first sheet, directed to the attached surface, to a second surface of the first sheet, directed to the second sheet, the adhesive agent includes a first layer (resin in either layer 9 or 10) provided between the first surface and the attached surface and a second layer (resin in layer 9) penetrating the first sheet from the first layer via the void, the first surface is bonded to the attached surface via the first layer, and a part of the second surface on a lateral side of the wire-like transmission member is bonded to the second sheet via the second layer (Fig. 3B) (re-claim 1). Bailey also discloses that a void is formed in the second sheet (8), wherein the void extends from an inner portion of the second sheet to a surface of the second sheet, directed to the first sheet, wherein the adhesive agent includes a third layer (resin in layer 8) penetrating the second sheet via the void of the second sheet (re-claim 3); and the wire-like transmission member is fixed to the first sheet or to the second sheet (re-claim 6).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Reibel et al. (20060090924).
Bailey discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the first and second sheet comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the void is formed between the plurality of fibers.
Bailey does not disclose the first and second sheets including a non-woven cloth layer. Reibel et al. discloses a wiring member comprising first and second sheets which are non-woven cloth layers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the first and second sheets of Bailey to comprise non-woven cloth layer as taught by Reibel et al. since such material exhibits a dielectric strength and a dimensional stability ([0005]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Konya (2012/0199376).
Bailey discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the wire-like transmission member being fixed to the first sheet. Bailey does not disclose the second sheet being shorter than the first sheet along an extension direction of the wire-like transmission member. Konya (Fig. 1) discloses a wiring member comprising a first sheet (3), a second sheet (3), and a wire-like transmission member (2) sandwiched therebetween, wherein the second sheet is shorter than the first sheet along an extension direction of the wire-like transmission member. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the wiring member of Bailey such that the second sheet is shorter than the first sheet along an extension direction of the wire-like transmission member as taught by Konya to form a terminal part on the wire-like transmission member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Bailey fails to disclose “an adhesive agent bonding the first sheet, the second sheet, and the adherend at an end portion that does not overlap the wire-like transmission member in a plan view of the adherend,”
because the adhesive resin of Bailey is applied across the entirety of the sheet layers (7-10), including in the section occupied by the wires.
Examiner would disagree. Although the adhesive resin of Bailey is applied across the entirety of the sheet layers, the adhesive agent bonds the sheets and the adherend at an end portion that does not overlap the wire-like transmission member, see the annotated Figure above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights