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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-20 based primarily on the Dangler reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new matter added to claim 1 and the Noboru reference, as detailed below.
With respect to instant claim 1, Examiner has found (see below) that the amendment constitutes new matter. Nonetheless, the Dangler reference would continue to disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as amended because the second non-conductive layer (FIG 3:15) is already shown as being disposed between and directly contacting both the second conductive layer (17) and the conductive ground layer (18). Thus, Applicant’s contention that claim 1 as amended would overcome Dangler is incorrect. An appropriate rejection is provided below. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has also provided a rejection of claims 1-6 based on the Noboru reference.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 alleges that claim 1 has been amended to recite “a first non-conductive layer disposed between and in direct contact with the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer” (Remarks, p. 7). Applicant is incorrect, as is apparent from the claims filed on 07/01/2026. As a result, these arguments are wholly incorrect and irrelevant to claim 1 as it was actually amended. Applicant’s discussion is relevant to claim 7, and Examiner agrees to the extent that amendments to claim 7 distinguish over Dangler. A new ground of rejection is provided below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6 as obvious in view of Dangler and Faquhar, Applicant’s arguments merely allege that Farquhar fails to cure alleged deficiencies in Dangler. As discussed above, and as detailed below, Dangler is not deficient with respect to the limitations of claim 1. As such, Applicant’s arguments relating to the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6 are moot.
With respect to the arguments pertaining to the remaining claims, such arguments are mooted as the rejections of claims 7-20 based on Dangler in view of other references are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 7 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended the limitations therein to presently recite “a second non-conductive layer disposed between and in direct contact with the second conductive layer and a conductive ground layer….” While Applicant contends that this is not new matter (see Remarks, p. 6), Applicant’s contention is incorrect. Applicant cites to instant FIGS 4-5 and paragraph [0023] of the Specification as filed in support of the amendment. Paragraph [0023] merely defines “direct contact” to mean that elements are connected without “any intermediary” layers. Thus, the presence of a conductive adhesive or a non-conductive adhesive (i.e., “an insulating layer”) would preclude “direct contact” as explicitly defined by Applicant.
Turning then to FIGS 4 and 5, neither figure provides support for the newly added limitation. In FIG 5, the second non-conductive layer 137 is positioned between adhesive layers 140 and 175, thus precluding any direct contact with second conductive layer 155 and ground conductive layer 160. FIG 4 depicts a direct contact between second non-conductive layer 137 and ground conductive layer 160, but no such direct contact between layer 137 and second conductive layer 155. As such, it is evident that the amended limitations of claim 1 are in fact new matter.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, fail to remedy the new matter deficiency, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0160421 (“Dangler”).
Regarding claim 1, Dangler discloses:
A flat flexible cable (title, abstract, FIGS 1-3) comprising:
a first conductive layer (FIG 3, upper instance of layer 17) with a plurality of traces (para. [0009], “conductive traces 17”);
a second conductive layer (FIG 3, lower instance of layer 17) with a second plurality of traces (“conductive traces 17”);
a first non-conductive layer (e.g., dielectric layer 14) disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (dielectric layer 14 is positioned between upper and lower layers of conductive traces 17); and
a second non-conductive layer (dielectric layer 15) disposed between the second conductive layer (lower instance of layer 17) and a conductive ground layer (para. [0009], “ground plane 18”), wherein the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, and the conductive ground layer are electrically connected (para. [0009], “conductive traces 17…may also include logic ground lines which cooperate [with] the logic ground planes;” para. [0010], “copper layers 18 and 30 function to provide a logic ground plane immediately above and below each layer of conductive traces”).
Regarding claim 2, Dangler discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first and second conductive layers being copper (para. [0009]; “an upper copper coating which is etched to form a series of conductive traces 17”).
Regarding claim 4, Dangler discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first non-conductive layer being polyimide (para. [0009]; “[a] typical dielectric used for these layers is polyimide film”).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016164882 (“Noboru”). References to text are made to the accompanying machine translation, obtained from Espace.net.
Regarding claim 1, Noboru discloses:
A flat flexible cable (FIG 12) comprising:
a first conductive layer with a plurality of traces (20a-c);
a second conductive layer with a second plurality of traces (21a-c);
a first non-conductive layer (para. [0018], “dielectric sheet 19”) disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (as seen in FIG 12, where dielectric sheet 19 is disposed between trace layers 20 and 21) and
a second non-conductive layer (para. [0017], “dielectric sheets 18a and 18b”) disposed between and in direct contact with the second conductive layer and a conductive ground layer (FIG 11:64; see paras. [0118-124] discussing the structures of FIGS 10 and 11, including ground planes 62 and 62; see also para. [0126] discussing how FIG 12 shows an alternative embodiment of prior FIGS where multiple signal lines are provided; thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that ground plane 64 of FIG 11 corresponds to the similarly depicted, but unlabeled, ground plane of FIG 12), wherein the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, and the conductive ground layer are electrically connected (as shown in FIG 12, ground planes 62 and 64 are connected by vias b10-12 and b7-9; see also paras. [0037-38] which disclose vias b7 and b10 as “aligned” with signal lines 20 and 21, respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first and second conductive layers being formed from copper (paras. [0026] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first and second conductive layers being approximately 5-20 μm in thickness (para. [0059]; “[t]he thickness of the copper foil is 10 μm to 20 μm; as elaborated in paras. [0060-61], the signal and ground lines 20 and 21 are formed from this copper foil, and thus would have a thickness no greater than the copper foil).
Regarding claim 4, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the first non-conductive layer being formed of polyimide (see para. [0018] which states “dielectric sheet 19 is made of a flexible thermoplastic resin” and para. [0017] which lists “polyimide” as a flexible thermoplastic resin; thus, polyimide is contemplated as a suitable material for the first non-conductive layer 19).
Regarding claim 6, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the conductive ground layer being approximately 5-20 μm in thickness (para. [0059]; “[t]he thickness of the copper foil is 10 μm to 20 μm; as elaborated in paras. [0060-61], the ground conductors 22 and 24 are formed from this copper foil, and thus would have a thickness no greater than the copper foil).
Regarding claim 7, Noboru discloses:
A method for forming a flat flexible cable (FIGS 7 and 12) comprising:
bonding (see paras. [0071-74]) a first conductive layer having a plurality of traces (20, 20a-c), a second conductive layer having a second plurality of traces (21, 21a-c), a first non-conductive layer (19’), a second non-conductive layer (18b), and a conductive ground layer (24) together (“after bonding dielectric sheets 18a and 18b with an adhesive layer 19’), wherein the first non-conductive layer (19’) is disposed between and in direct contact with the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (as seen in FIG 7) and the second non-conductive layer is disposed between the second conductive layer and the conductive ground layer (as seen in FIGS 7 and 12); and
creating an electrical connection between the first conductive layer, the second conductive layer, and the conductive ground layer (paras. [0074-77]).
Regarding claim 8, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses the first and second conductive layers being formed from copper (paras. [0026] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses the first and second conductive layers being approximately 5-20 μm in thickness (para. [0059]; “[t]he thickness of the copper foil is 10 μm to 20 μm; as elaborated in paras. [0060-61], the signal and ground lines 20 and 21 are formed from this copper foil, and thus would have a thickness no greater than the copper foil).
Regarding claim 10, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses the first non-conductive layer being formed of polyimide (see para. [0018] which states “dielectric sheet 19 is made of a flexible thermoplastic resin” and para. [0017] which lists “polyimide” as a flexible thermoplastic resin; thus, polyimide is contemplated as a suitable material for the first non-conductive layer 19).
Regarding claim 12, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses the conductive ground layer being approximately 5-20 μm in thickness (para. [0059]; “[t]he thickness of the copper foil is 10 μm to 20 μm; as elaborated in paras. [0060-61], the ground conductors 22 and 24 are formed from this copper foil, and thus would have a thickness no greater than the copper foil).
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(s) 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,847,324 (“Farquhar”).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 6, Dangler discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose a specific height or range of height values for the first and second conductive layers (claim 3), the first non-conductive layer (claim 5), or the conductive ground layer (claim 6).
It is indisputable, however, that the layers of Dangler have a height value. Thus, the difference between the instant claims and the prior art may be characterized as optimization of layer heights/thicknesses. There are various motivations for making the cited layers thicker or thinner. For example, the material cost of copper may serve as a motivation to make the copper traces shorter in height (i.e., “thinner”), thereby reducing the amount of material required. Additionally, thinner material layers are typically more flexible than thicker layers of the same material.
Farquhar discloses conductive copper layers having thicknesses ranging from 18 micrometers up to 70 micrometers (col. 3, ll. 37-49) and a dielectric layer having a thickness of 25 micrometers (col. 4, ll. 1-2).
The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. MPEP §2143(G). The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." Id. at 1368.
Thus, even though Farquhar does not specify why the ranges disclosed therein are desirable, it may be concluded from general knowledge in the art that these ranges represent a optimization of layer thickness in view of the various considerations and circumstances (e.g., intended application for the cable, cost of materials, complexity of design, etc.).
In view of the foregoing, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive first and second layers of Dangler to have a thickness in an approximate range of 5-20 micrometers, to modify the non-conductive layer to have a thickness in an approximate range of 5-20 micrometers, and to modify the ground layer to have a thickness in an approximate range of 25-50 micrometers, for the purposes of optimizing the performance of the flexible flat cable disclosed therein while minimizing the costs of manufacturing the same cables.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noboru as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, and further in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Noboru discloses the limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 7, respectively, and further discloses the first non-conductive layer being in a range between 25 μm and 100 μm. While the instant claim recites a range of “5-20 μm,” it recites the range as an approximation. Turning to the instant disclosure, including the Specification as filed, it is evident that this range (and the other ranges recited by the claims) are preferential, but not critical. See, e.g., para. [0027] which states “explicit or implicit dimensions…are for example purposes only and are not to be construed as limiting” (emphasis by Examiner). See also para. [0037] which discloses all the relevant ranges with the language “can be approximately,” further emphasizing that none of these ranges should be construed as having any form of criticality.
The courts have previously held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I). For example, the courts held that a ratio of about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical. In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934).
Here, the ranges are separated by a 5 μm difference. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand and appreciate that thinner cables provide for greater flexibility in addition to saving space in the region which they are connected. There being no evidence or suggestion that the recited range is critical, Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Noboru to reduce the thickness of the first non-conductive layer to be no greater than 20 μm for the purposes of providing increased cable flexibility and reducing the physical space occupied by the cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matter of instant claim 13.
Noboru is considered to be the closest prior art of record. As may be seen in the rejection of claim 7, above, Noboru discloses substantially all of the subject matter recited by claim 13, differing only in that claim 13 further recites “a conductive adhesive layer disposed between a second non-conductive layer and a ground conductive layer” (emphasis by Examiner). Thus, the conductive adhesive layer presumptively functions to bond the second non-conductive layer to the ground conductive layer. The ground conductive layer of Noboru is made integrally with the second non-conductive layer (FIG 12:18b). There is therefore no clear reason or motivation to modify Noboru to arrive at the instant limitation. Examiner is unable to find any other prior art that, alone or in combination with others, discloses the subject matter as recited by claim 13; thus, claim 13 is allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 14-20 depend from claim 13 and are allowable for at least the same reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights