DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on May 04 2026 is being examined.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Rejection of claim 1, multiple terms “an longitudinally extending region”, “an orthogonally extending region”, “a width direction”, and “a longitudinal direction” lack antecedent bases. It is not clear it refers to what.
Appropriate action is required.
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-AlA) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all rejections set forth 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Kino et al. (US20080213615, herein referred to as Kino).
Rejection of claim 1, Kino discloses a shielding tape (figures 1-2 of Kino) comprising:
a tape material having an adhesive surface (19) and
a thin metal film ( 15) adhering to the adhesive surface (19),
wherein the thin metal film adheres to the adhesive surface while leaving a longitudinally extending region where the adhesive surface is exposed on at least one end portion of the tape material in a width direction (see figures 1-2 of Kino );
and the thin metal film adheres to the adhesive surface while leaving an orthogonally extending region where the adhesive surface is exposed on both ends of the tape material in a longitudinal direction, the orthogonally extending region being orthogonal to the longitudinally extending region (see figures 1-2 of Kino ).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US20130133941, herein referred to as Cook) or Miller et al. (US5593756, herein referred to as Miller) in view of Jensen et al. (US4954670, herein referred to as Jensen) or Diaz et al. (US4209352, herein referred to as Diaz).
Rejection of claim 1, a shielding tape discloses a shielding tape (figure 3 of Cook or figure 1 of Miller) comprising:
a tape material having an adhesive surface (216 in figure 3 of cook; or strip shaped adhesive 16 or 20 having adhesive surface in miller) and
a thin metal film ( 212 in Cook; or Miller discloses 24 is metal substrate) adhering to the adhesive surface (see figure 3 of Cook; or adhesive surface of adhesive 16 or 20 attached to 24 in miller),
wherein the thin metal film adheres to the adhesive surface while leaving a longitudinally extending region where the adhesive surface is exposed on at least one end portion of the tape material in a width direction (see figure 3 of Cook; or see figure 1 of Miller ).
Cook or Miller fails to disclose and the thin metal film adheres to the adhesive surface while leaving an orthogonally extending region where the adhesive surface is exposed on both ends of the tape material in a longitudinal direction, the orthogonally extending region being orthogonal to the longitudinally extending region.
Jensen or Diaz disclose and the thin metal film adheres to the adhesive surface while leaving an orthogonally extending region where the adhesive surface is exposed on both ends of the tape material in a longitudinal direction, the orthogonally extending region being orthogonal to the longitudinally extending region (see 12 in figure 2a of Jensen; or see 13 in figure 1 or figure 3 of Diaz).
It would have been obvious to ordinally skill in the before the effective filing date of the shielding tape of cook or miller to have peripheral adhesive surface of tape material or sheet as taught by Jensen or Diaz so that it is secure or protect different parts of tape material as well as configure to tightly secure or seal elongated article within tape material in longitudinal and orthogonal direction of the tape material or sheet (see specification and figures of Jenson or Diaz).
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case, all of which disclose various shielding tapes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571)272-2342. 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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights