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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francis Patrick O'Neill et al. (US 20150141792 hereinafter O'Nell).
In regards to claim 1, O'Nell discloses;” A cable harness (abstract, title) having a sheath (Fig. 3 (40, 50) covering an outer circumference of a conductor part, the cable harness comprising: the conductor part (Fig. 3 (38)) and wherein the conductor part comprises a mesh-type pattern part that continuously reconfigures a conductor width and a space part (Fig. 5, paragraph’s 0035 – 0036).”
In regards to claim 2, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1, wherein, at both ending points of the conductor part, an electrically conductive component is attached to the upper portion of the conductor part and wherein, at the other side of one ending point of the conductor part, a stiffener is positioned at the lower portion of the sheath (Fig. 3 (shown)).”
In regards to claim 5, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1, wherein the sheath is composed of either PEN, Pl, or PCT film (paragraph 0031 where the insulator is a polyimide).”
In regards to claim 10, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 2, wherein the sheath is composed of either PEN, Pl, or PCT film (paragraph 0031 where the insulator is a polyimide).”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis Patrick O'Neill et al. (US 20150141792 hereinafter O'Nell).
In regards to claim 3, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width is at least 10 μm, and the space part is at most 190 μm to enhance excellent flexibility.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 3 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 4, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width is a maximum of 190 μm and the space part is a minimum of 10 μm to enhance electrical conduction.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 4 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 6, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the electrically conductive component is composed of tin.”
However O’Nell does disclose in paragraph 0033 “the end of the cable 36 distal from the
electrodes patch 34 each conductor or trace 38 is coated with a layer or layer stack 72 of a suitably electrically conductive material (that is, more electrically conductive than the conductors or traces 38).” The use of good conducting metals for terminals is common in the design of electrical structures, whereas tin, gold and silver are used to minimize corrosion of metals such as copper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the terminals using tin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, claim 6 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 7, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width and the space part are each comprised to be 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace, and father disclose there are multiple conductor spaced apart as shown in figure 2. ” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 7 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 8, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor has a thickness of 5 μm to 250 μm.
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 8 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 9, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 1”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the sheath has a thickness of 30 μm to 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in the abstract discloses the conductor has a covering surrounding the conductors. In cable design, the cover thickness and material used are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 9 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 11, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 3, wherein the sheath is composed of either PEN, Pl, or PCT film (paragraph 0031 where the insulator is a polyimide).”
In regards to claim 12, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 4, wherein the sheath is composed of either PEN, Pl, or PCT film (paragraph 0031 where the insulator is a polyimide).”
In regards to claim 13, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 2”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width and the space part are each comprised to be 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace, and father disclose there are multiple conductor spaced apart as shown in figure 2. ” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 13 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 14, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 3”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width and the space part are each comprised to be 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace, and father disclose there are multiple conductor spaced apart as shown in figure 2. ” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 14 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 15, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 4”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor width and the space part are each comprised to be 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace, and father disclose there are multiple conductor spaced apart as shown in figure 2. ” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 15 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 16, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 2”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor has a thickness of 5 μm to 250 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 16 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 17, a modified a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 3”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor has a thickness of 5 μm to 250 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 17 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 18, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 4”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the conductor has a thickness of 5 μm to 250 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in paragraph 0036 that the conductor may vary in trace width and/or thickness, for the trace.” In design the specific sizes of conductors and spacings are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the conductors to fit the required sizes for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 18 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 19, O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 2”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the sheath has a thickness of 30 μm to 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in the abstract discloses the conductor has a covering surrounding the conductors. In cable design, the cover thickness and material used are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 19 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 20, a modified O'Nell discloses;” The cable harness of claim 3”, but does not directly disclose;” wherein the sheath has a thickness of 30 μm to 100 μm.”
However, O’Nell disclosed in the abstract discloses the conductor has a covering surrounding the conductors. In cable design, the cover thickness and material used are dependent on the application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being, within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the covering to protect the conductors with the required thickness for the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, claim 20 is disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F MCALLISTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL F MCALLISTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847