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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 13-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16-17 and 20 have been amended.
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.
Claims 13 and 16-20 are 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.
Regarding Claim 13, there is an issue of antecedent basis of “the segment” that renders the claim indefinite, as there are multiple segments, insulated segment, exposed conductive segment, and bent segment.
Regarding Claim 16, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard “first and second portions of the fabric” that render the claim indefinite.
Claims 17-20 are rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookstein et al. (US 2012/0118427 A1) in view of Vicard et al. (US 2009/0200066 A1) and Carter et al. (US 6,111,323 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Brookstein teaches an article (Abstract) comprising first and second fabric layers that enclose a pocket (Fig. 5) with an electrical component in the pocket (Item 300) and a conductive strand contacting the electrical component. (Fig. 5).
Brookstein does not specifically teach the conductive strand having an insulated segment and an exposed conductive segment, the electrical component has a groove and a contact in the groove, where the exposed conductive segment is received within the groove and electrically coupled to the contact, wherein the conductive strand has a bent segment in the pocket that bends back on itself.
Vicard teaches a conductive strand having an insulated segment and an exposed conductive segment (Paragraph 0052, 0054) and electrical component comprising a groove and a contact in the groove (Paragraph 0024), where the exposed conductive segment is received/soldered within the groove and electrically coupled to the contact. (Paragraph 0024; Fig 6-9). Vicard teaches the conductive strand can have a bent segment that bends back on itself next to the electronic componet. (Fig. 14). Vicard teaches this arrangement for an electronic device conductive strand ensures better connection between the conductive strands and electronic component and ensures better support for the electronic component. (Paragraph 0008, 0028). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive strand having an insulated segment and an exposed conductive segment, the electrical component has a groove and a contact in the groove, where the exposed conductive segment is received within the groove and electrically coupled to the contact, wherein the conductive strand has a bent segment in the pocket that bends back on itself as taught by Vicard to the electronic component and conductive strand in Brookstein for a better connected and supported electronic component.
Vicard does not specifically teach encapsulant in the groove. Brookstein teaches encapsulating electronic devices. (Paragraph 0070).
Carter teaches encapsulants are used on solder connection to improve the lifespan of the solder connection and therefore the integrity of the electronic component. (Column 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply encapsulation material to partially encapsulate the first and second solder connections of Vicard and fill the groove as taught by Carter to protect the electronic component and enhance the life span of the soldered connections
Regarding Claim 14, Brookstein teaches the first and second fabric layers comprise woven fabric. (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Brookstein teaches the electrical component can comprise a printed circuit and an electrical device mounted to the printed circuit (Paragraph 0042, 0069). Vicard teaches a protective structure that covers the electrical device (Item 2), where the grooves are formed in the protective structure. Vicard teaches this protective structure and groove ensure proper connection of the conductive wires to the electrical component (Paragraph 0028, 0008). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the groove protective structure to the electrical component of Brookstein.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookstein, Vicard and Carter, in view of Sunshine (WO 2017/030851 A2) [referenced via US 2019/0013274 A1].
Regarding Claim 13, Brookstein does not teach additional encapsulant that captures the segment in the pocket.
Sunshine teaches a fabric and electronic component together, where a conductive strand can be interposed between an electronic component and the encapsulant material. (Abstract; Fig. 12). Sunshine teaches applying additional encapsulant material that captures the segment in the pocket. (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0054). Sunshine teaches this additional encapsulant can be used to protect the component from dust and moisture. (Paragraph 0054). Thus, it would have bene obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply additional encapsulant that captures the segment in the pocket as taught by Sunshine to protect the electronic component.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookstein in view of Sunshine
Regarding Claim 16, Brookstein teaches a fabric-based item (Abstract) comprising a fabric that encloses a closed pocket (Fig. 5)., a conductive strand that passes through the closed pocket and is interposed between the first and second portions of the fabric (Paragraph 0068), and an electrical component mounted to the conductive strand within the closed pocket (Fig. 5, Item 300), where the electrical component comprises a printed circuit (Paragraph 0042, 0069) and a encapsulant material (Paragraph 0070).
Brookstein does not specifically teach the conductive strand is interposed between the printed circuit and the encapsulant.
Sunshine teaches a fabric and electronic component together, where a conductive strand can be interposed between an electronic component and the encapsulant material. (Abstract; Fig. 12). Sunshine teaches applying this encapsulant material can provide protection to the entire structure, the conductive strand and the electrical component. (Paragraph 0050-0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to interpose the conductive strand between the printed circuit and encapsulant material in Brookstein to protect the strand and component as taught by Sunshine.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Brookstein and Sunshine in further view of Vicard.
Regarding Claim 20, Brookstein does not teach a segment of conductive strand that overlaps itself within the closed pocket.
Vicard teaches a conductive strand having an insulated segment and an exposed conductive segment (Paragraph 0052, 0054) and electrical component comprising a groove and a contact in the groove (Paragraph 0024), where the exposed conductive segment is received/soldered within the groove and electrically coupled to the contact. (Paragraph 0024; Fig 6-9). Vicard teaches the conductive strand can have a bent segment that overlaps on itself next to the electronic component. (Fig. 14). Vicard teaches this arrangement for an electronic device conductive strand ensures better connection between the conductive strands and electronic component and ensures better support for the electronic component. (Paragraph 0008, 0028). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive strand having an insulated segment and an exposed conductive segment, the electrical component has a groove and a contact in the groove, where the exposed conductive segment is received within the groove and electrically coupled to the contact, wherein the conductive strand has a bent segment in the pocket that overlaps on itself as taught by Vicard to the electronic component and conductive strand in Brookstein for a better connected and supported electronic component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights