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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2006/0141864 A1) in view of Yoshizawa et al (US 5,521,520) hereafter Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081 discloses a flexible electric wiring substrate 40, comprising: a plurality of groups each including wiring [wiring for each 46a, as explained at ¶0081], a connector land 43 that electrically connects a terminal of a connector [implicit to 43 i.e. terminal of connector for 43 from a control device “The lands 43 for control input electric signals from a control device not shown”, see ¶0081] to the wiring, a pad [pads for 80 on 40, not shown] that connects a terminal of an electronic part 80 to the wiring, and a plating lead 45/46a that is electrically connected with the pad through the wiring and is used as a current supply port [¶0091] at least in a case of electrolytic plating of the pad [this is product by process limitation, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)] wherein a plurality of the plating leads [plurality of 45/46a, plurality of 45/46b] are arranged such that each of a plurality of inspection probes arrayed on a probe holding substrate is abutted onto each plating lead [intended use of probes are not given patentable weight (see preamble i.e. “a flexible electric wiring substrate, comprising:”), however at ¶0090 discloses “In the attachment step, the driver IC 80 will be attached on the flexible circuit sheet 40. After attaching the driver IC 80, the electric signals output from each test land 45 will be confirmed with a test probe not shown in the figures. In this way, it can be confirmed whether the driver IC 80 is attached on the flexible circuit sheet 40.” A probe holding substrate is implicit to support for the probe. See a probe holder 111/101 of the probe 107/102 at patent US 5,521,520].
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads is equal to or smaller than a pitch of the plurality of the inspection probes [equal pitch of 45 is implicit to Suzuki. Also, See “ Incidentally, when the electrical connection is effected, although it is necessary to position the semi-conductor element 3 and the circuit board 2, since the pitch between the conductive members 102 of the electric connection member 1 is smaller than the pitch between the connection portions 301 of the semi-conductor element 3 and the pitch between the connection portion 201 of the circuit board 2, the positioning of the electric connection member 1 may be effected roughly.” of Yoshizawa] arrayed in a row on the probe holding substrate [row of probes are implicit to probes for 45 of Suzuki. Also see “As mentioned above, according to the present invention, it is possible to measure the multi-pin measured part with narrower pitch than the conventional cases and to check the electric features and/or system features of numerous measured parts by using the electric connection member easily and cheaply.” of Yoshizawa].
Regarding claim 3, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads is equal to or smaller than a pitch of the plurality of the inspection probes arrayed in two rows in staggered arrangement on the probe holding substrate in a case where the two rows are combined into one row [Suzuki discloses two/two rows of 45 at fig. 11].
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein a part of each plating lead is exposed to a surface, and the rest is covered with a coverlay [“solder resist” see ¶0107].
Regarding claim 5, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 4, wherein the portion 45 of each plating lead 45/46a that is exposed to the surface includes a portion onto which each inspection probe is abutted.
Regarding claim 6, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein each plating lead 45/46a includes an expanded portion 45, and a plurality of the plating leads [plurality of 45/46a, plurality of 45/46b] and the expanded portions are arranged such that each inspection probe is abutted onto the expanded portion included in each plating lead.
Regarding claim 7, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 6, wherein the expanded portions included in the plurality of the plating leads, respectively, are arrayed in two rows in staggered arrangement [Suzuki discloses two/two rows of 45 at fig. 11].
Regarding claim 8, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 7, wherein in a direction [vertical direction] in which the plating leads are arrayed, a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads [pitch between two 45 as shown] is provided so as to be equal to or smaller than a length of each expanded portion [length of 45 longer than pitch of two rows of 45 at fig. 11].
Regarding claim 9, as explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the plating leads 45/46a are arranged in one end portion [portion of 45 at 53a] of the flexible electric wiring substrate in a longitudinal direction [vertical direction].
Regarding claim 11, as further explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads [distance between 45 as shown at fig. 7] is narrower than a pitch of a plurality of the connector lands [distance between 43 as shown at fig. 7].
Regarding claim 10, as further explained above for rejection of claims 1-2, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads [distance between 45 as shown at fig. 8,11, see ¶0082] is wider than a pitch of a plurality of the connector lands [distance between 43 as shown at fig. 7].
Regarding claim 12, as further explained above for rejection of claims 10-11, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the plating leads are arranged in one end portion [45 on left of 53a as an example] of the flexible electric wiring substrate in a longitudinal direction [vertical direction], a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads is narrower than a pitch of a plurality of the connector lands, and a width of the one end portion [Wb of 46b] of the flexible electric wiring substrate in the longitudinal direction is narrower than a width of a portion [Wa of 46a] of the flexible electric wiring substrate except the one end portion 45 in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 13, as further explained above for rejection of claim 7, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 12, wherein each plating lead includes an expanded portion, and the expanded portions included in the plurality of the plating leads, respectively, are arrayed in two rows in staggered arrangement [Suzuki discloses two/two rows of 45 at fig. 11].
Regarding claim 14, as further explained above for rejection of claim 8, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 13, wherein in a direction [vertical direction] in which the plating leads are arrayed, a pitch of the plurality of the plating leads is provided as to be equal to or smaller than a length of each expanded portion .
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki at fig. 7-11, ¶0081, ¶0090 discloses the flexible electric wiring substrate according to claim 1, wherein electrolytic plating [soldering. See fig. 10] is performed on the connector land, the plating lead, and the pad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
March 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights