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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 28, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copy of JP Publication 2008-098238 has been provided.
The remaining information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 21, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, “a deposited flexible conductive shield layer surrounding” should be, “the first and second deposited flexible conductive shield layers surround”, as claim 1 was amended to include two shielding layers.
Claim 9, “a width of the deposited flexible conductive shield layer” should be, “a width of the first and second deposited flexible conductive shield layers” to comport with claims 1 and 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2020/0137882 to Coakley et al. (hereinafter Coakley).
Claim 1
Coakley (FIG. 2) discloses a stacked structure comprising:
a first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170);
a flexible electrical conductor (132) on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170) and configured to conduct an electrical signal;
a second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) on the flexible electrical conductor (132) opposite the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170);
a first deposited flexible conductive shield layer (139) on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170); and
a second deposited flexible conductive shield layer (138) on the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160).
Claim 2
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 1 wherein the flexible electrical conductor (132) comprises a deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132); and
wherein each of the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170), the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132), and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) has a respective thickness in a first direction to provide a thickness of the stacked structure (FIG. 2).
Claim 3
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 2 wherein the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) comprise different layers.
Claim 5
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 2 wherein each of the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170), the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132), and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) has a respective width in a second direction, that is different than the first direction (FIG. 2).
Claim 6
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 5 wherein the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) are about a first width and the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) has a second width that is less than the first width (FIG. 2).
Claim 7
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 5 wherein each of the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170), the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132), and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) has a respective length in a third direction, that is different than the first and second directions (FIG. 1A).
Claim 8
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 5 wherein the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) are combined to surround the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) in the first and second directions, the stacked structure further comprising:
a deposited flexible conductive shield layer (138, 139) surrounding the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) and the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) in the first and second directions.
Claim 9
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 8 wherein the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) have a combined width that is greater than a width of the deposited flexible conductive shield layer (138, 139)(FIG. 2).
Claim 13
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 5 wherein the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) comprises a first deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132), the stacked structure further comprising:
a second deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (134) between the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) directly adjacent to the first deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132); and
a third deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (136) between the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers (170, 160) directly adjacent to the first deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) opposite the second deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (134)(FIG. 2A).
Claim 15
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 2 wherein the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) is directly on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170) and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) is directly on the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132)(FIG. 2).
Claim 17
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 7 wherein the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) comprises a crease-able electrically conductive layer, the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170) comprises a first crease-able dielectric layer, and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) comprises a second crease-able dielectric layer; and
wherein each of the crease-able electrically conductive layer (132), the first crease-able dielectric layer (170), and the second crease-able dielectric layer (160) exhibits a respective functional natural bending angle in a range between about 1 degree and about 180 degrees (FIG. 10A: foldable back on itself; see also specification page 31, paragraph 248).
Claim 18
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 7 wherein the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170), the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160), and the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer (132) each comprise a respective upper planar surface and a respective lower planar surface (FIG. 1-2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley in view of US Publication 2020/0253294 to Van de Zande et al. (hereinafter Van de Zande).
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 3, as shown above.
Coakley does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers comprises polymer ink, elastomeric urethane, elastomeric silicone, plasticized acrylic, and/or solvent-disperse polymer and wherein the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer comprises conductive ink, silver nanoparticle, and/or copper nanoparticle ink, as recited in claim 4.
Van de Zande teaches the use of a deposited flexible dielectric layer comprising polymer ink (paragraph 93), elastomeric urethane, elastomeric silicone (paragraph 87-88) and a deposited flexible electrically conductive layer comprises conductive ink, silver nanoparticle (paragraph 88), and/or copper nanoparticle ink (paragraph 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Van de Zande with Coakley to incorporate materials as taught by Van de Zande in the structure taught by Coakley, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for avoiding detachment or disintegration of the conductive traces (Van de Zande paragraph 88).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley.
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 13, as shown above.
Coakley does not expressly disclose a fourth deposited flexible electrically conductive layer between the first and second deposited flexible dielectric layers directly adjacent to the second deposited flexible electrically conductive layer opposite the first deposited flexible electrically conductive layer, wherein the first and fourth deposited flexible electrically conductive layers both comprise electrical ground layers and wherein the second and third deposited flexible electrically conductive layers both comprise electrical signal layers, as recited in claim 14.
Coakley does, however, teach combinations of signal lines (FIG. 1B-C: signal groups 130, 131) with shielding lines (FIG. 2A: 136, 134), and multiple signal lines (FIG. 8A: 132, 133).
Accordingly, such a rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as such a rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144 VI.C. citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Additionally, such an arrangement would be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 16
Coakley discloses the stacked structure of Claim 2, as shown above.
Coakley does not expressly disclose wherein each of the deposited flexible electrically conductive layer, the first deposited flexible dielectric layer, and the second deposited flexible dielectric layer exhibits a respective electrically functional bending radius in a range between about 2 mm and about 0.5 mm, as recited in claim 16.
Given that Coakley teaches forming circuits that may be bent back upon themselves (FIG. 10A), using materials with the claimed properties would be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Zande in view of Coakley.
Van de Zande (FIG. 1-4, 11) discloses a garment comprising:
a wearable textile (paragraph 93, FIG. 11: 36);
a plurality of electrical signal interconnects (24) extending among portions of the wearable textile tailored for respective body parts, the plurality of electrical signal interconnects (24) being configured to conduct electrical signals among devices (paragraph 86) coupled to the wearable textile, each of the electrical signal interconnects including:
a first deposited flexible dielectric layer (28) coupled to the wearable textile (36);
a flexible electrical conductor (24) on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (28) and configured to conduct an electrical signal;
a second deposited flexible dielectric layer (28) on the flexible electrical conductor (24) opposite the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (28),
and a plurality of electrical devices (300) coupled to the wearable textile (36) and coupled to respective ones of the plurality of electrical signal interconnect (24), as recited in claim 36.
Van de Zande does not expressly disclose a first deposited flexible conductive shield layer on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer; a second deposited flexible conductive shield layer on the second deposited flexible dielectric layer, as recited in claim 36.
Coakley (FIG. 2) teaches a first deposited flexible dielectric layer (160);
a flexible electrical conductor (132) on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170) and configured to conduct an electrical signal; a second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160) on the flexible electrical conductor (132) opposite the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170); a first deposited flexible conductive shield layer (139) on the first deposited flexible dielectric layer (170); and a second deposited flexible conductive shield layer (138) on the second deposited flexible dielectric layer (160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Coakley with Van de Zande to incorporate dielectric layers and shield layers as taught by Coakley in the structure of Van de Zande, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for a low profile arrangement with integrated shielding while maintaining flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 65 is allowed.
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Publication 2018/0364804.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN MILAKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, TIMOTHY DOLE can be reached at (571)272-2229. 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.
/NATHAN MILAKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
