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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 9 of the REMARKS, “However, Applicant respectfully states that Elms fails to teach or suggest the feature of "a terminal connection part formed by perforating a portion of the first film to expose at least one of the plurality of conductors such that a surface-mount terminal can be connected to the at least one of the plurality of conductors" in currently amended claim 1. That is, Elms merely discloses windows or openings used to expose conductors or relieve strain. However, Elms does not teach or suggest any perforation configured to receive a surface-mount terminal. The alleged 'inherent similarity' between Elms's exposure window and the claimed terminal connection part is not supported because the reference merely provides an opening for exposure, not a perforation structured for mounting an SMT terminal, as claimed.”. The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., for mounting an SMT terminal) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's argument that the perforation is configured to receive a surface-mount terminal, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Finally note that the claim states “a terminal can be connected to the at least one of the plurality of conductors. The claim is only suggesting a capability; the claim is not claiming actual structure. The structure as taught by Elm would provide a capability as being claimed. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
On page 10 of the REMARKS, “In the claimed invention, the penetration part is defined by unique structural features, where the part is located at a predetermined distance from the terminal connection part, in the opposite direction to the connector part, and it perforates the conductor and both films simultaneously to electrically disconnect the conductor, as claimed.”. The Office respectfully disagrees. The claimed structural features are taught by Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1). Note that the claimed “predetermined distance” is not being quantified in the claim language.
On pages 10-11 of the REMARKS, “However, Applicant respectfully submits that Elms fails to teach or suggest the features of "an inspection part located in a direction toward the first connector part from the terminal connection part, the inspection part being formed by perforating a portion of the first film corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of conductors so as to allow electrical inspection of the at least one of the plurality of conductors" in currently amended claim 1. That is, amended claim 1 recites a perforation of the first film specifically for electrical inspection, located in a direction toward the connector part from the terminal connection part. Unlike the claimed invention, Elms merely discloses an exposure part that allows the conductor to be seen. The exposure part according to Elms is not an inspection perforation. The exposure part in the reference merely serves for visibility of the conductor and thus does not provide a perforation structurally configured to enable probing or testing of the conductor, as claimed. Moreover, Elms teaches or suggests neither the inspection part being formed by perforating a portion of the first film, as claimed nor the inspection part located in a direction toward the first connector part from the terminal connection part, as claimed.”. The Office respectfully disagrees. The opening as taught by Elm would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the opening as a means of inspection. Note that the claim has not defined the explicit means of inspection. The structure of the open is being taught by Elm and allows a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the opening as a means of inspection. For example, allowing the conductor to be see as argued by the Applicant, is a means of inspection. Seeing through the covering film to see if the conductor layer is completely intact and without any manufacturing defects, would provide an inspection of the conductor’s capability and could ensuring electrical continuity of the conductor. Note that the claim states “so as to allow electrical inspection”. The claim is only suggesting a capability; the claim is not claiming actual structure beyond perforating a portion of the first film. The structure as taught by Elm would provide a capability as being claimed. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. The claim has not explicitly and structurally defined the inspection nor has the claim claimed how the inspection feature is structurally specific to one specific type of inspection. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to enable probing or testing of the conductor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Similarly, the openings as shown in Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) as discussed below can also be used for visual inspection or by other means.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 has a grammatical error: “a second conductors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 4 and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) discloses a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1-3) comprising: a cable part (12), including a first film (20), a plurality of conductors (18) disposed on the first film (20), and a second film (16) attached to the first film (20) so as to face the plurality of conductors (18); a first connector part (part or portion about 24 furthest from 22 is meant to connect to 14; note that this claimed “part” has not been structurally limited by the claim language) disposed at an end (end region of 12 about middle of Fig 1 towards 14) of the cable part (12) and electrically connected to the plurality of conductors to an external device (14); a terminal connection part (part or portion at 18 about 22; [0014-0015] “for engagement by the conductors or terminals”; note that this claimed “part” has not been structurally limited by the claim language) formed by perforating (opening 22 through 20) a portion of the first film (20) to expose at least one of the plurality of conductors (18) such that a surface-mount terminal (terminals at 22 of 12 are to be connected to a complementary mating connecting device; [0014-0015]) (can) be connected to the at least one of the plurality of conductors (18); an inspection part (part or portion of 24 closer to 22 on 12 can be used as an inspection part; as the conductor 18 is exposed from the film 20, the conductor 18 can be inspected visually or by other means; note that this claimed “part” has not been structurally limited by the claim language) located in a direction toward the first connector part (part or portion about 24 furthest from 22 is meant to connect to 14) from the terminal connection part (part or portion at 18 about 22), the inspection part (part or portion of 24 closer to 22 on 12 can be used as an inspection part) being formed by perforating ([0015] “windows can be cut or punched in film 20 prior to laminating the film onto conductors 18”) a portion of the first film (20) corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of conductors (18) so as to allow electrical inspection (as openings 24 expose 18, a visual or electrical inspection of 18 can be performed, for example visually seeing if 18 is without voids or defects; note that the inspection itself and more precisely a specific structure for a specific inspection process is not claimed) of the at least one of the plurality of conductors (18).
Fuerst does not disclose a penetration part located at a predetermined distance from the terminal connection part in a direction opposite to the first connector part, the penetration part perforating the at least one of the plurality of conductors and corresponding areas of the first film and the second film to disconnect the at least one of the plurality of conductors.
Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1 or 4) comprising: a penetration part (111; note that this claimed “part” has not been structurally limited by the claim language) located at a predetermined distance (111 is shown a distance from a part or portion ending 108 or 109; [0027]) from a terminal connection part (portion or part at 108 or 109) in a direction opposite to a first connector part (part or portion about other end at 109 or 108), the penetration part (111) perforating ([0024,0038]; claim 2 “at least one opening defined by and passing entirely through a portion of said electrical connector member and entirely through a portion of said subset of electrical conductors”) at least one of the plurality of conductors (105) and corresponding areas of a first film (area or region at 105 about upper 106; [0021]) and a second film (area or region at 105 about lower 106; [0021]) to disconnect ([0024-0029]) the at least one of the plurality of conductors (105).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as disclosed by Fuerst comprising a penetration part located at a predetermined distance from the terminal connection part in a direction opposite to the first connector part, the penetration part perforating the at least one of the plurality of conductors and corresponding areas of the first film and the second film to disconnect the at least one of the plurality of conductors as taught by Tarte, in order to reduce the length or portion of the corresponding electrical conductors, to reduce and/or minimize undesirable electromagnetic radiation emitted and/or received by the conductor proximate a signal source end, and improve the electromagnetic characteristics (Tarte, [0022-0030]).
Claim states “inspection part” and “so as to allow electrical inspection”, however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Claim states “can be connected” and “so as to allow electrical inspection”, however it has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1 from Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1-3) according to claim 1, further comprising a support part (opening 24 closer to 22) which penetrates ([0015] “windows can be cut or punched in film 20 prior to laminating the film onto conductors 18”) a portion of the cable part excluding the terminal connection part (part or portion at 18 about 22; [0014-0015]) to support (as 24 is fused or bonded to 14, weight of 12 is carried by 14 and thus providing some relief or support for connection to the external device ([0014-0015]); note that the structure of the claimed support is not structurally claimed nor how this provides support) the cable part on the external device ([0014-0015]).
Regarding Claim 14, Fuerst in view of Tart teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Fuerst further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1) according to claim 1, wherein the terminal connection part (part or portion at 18 about 22) comprises a portion ([0014]) which electrically fuses and bonds some conductors (18) exposed to some areas of the first film (20) and the second films (16) film externally ([0014]).
Fuerst does not explicitly disclose which electrically fuses and bonds some conductors exposed to some areas of the first film and the second films film externally.
However Fuerst teaches a connection part (18 at 24) comprises a fusion coupling portion ([0017]) which electrically fuses and bonds some conductors (18) exposed to some areas of first and second films (16,20) externally.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the terminal connection part comprises a fusion coupling portion which electrically fuses and bonds some conductors exposed to some areas of the first film and the second films film externally, as both limitations are presented by the same publication, in order to provide an electrical connection that is alternative to using solder (Fuerst, Abstract [0001,0007,0017]) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide an electrical connection that is alternative to using solder. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Note that using an ultrasonic welding means of connection allows for an electrical and mechanical connection without unnecessary manufacturing tools such as solder dispenser, and does not require additional steps and tooling required for forming a solder connection. Minimizing tooling and materials eases the overall manufacturing of an assembly.
Regarding Claim 15, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Fuerst further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1-2) according to claim 14, wherein the fusion coupling portion electrically connects (Abstract [0001,0007,0017]) the some conductors (18 at 24) exposed externally (through laser or ultrasound (Abstract [0001,0007,0017])).
Claim 15 states “through laser” and “ultrasound” however “laser” and “ultrasound” pertain to a method of forming a coupling as opposed to product structure. Therefore Claim 15 is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim with method steps of laser welding and ultrasonic bonding. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 16, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Tarte further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,4) according to claim 1, wherein the first connector part (portion about 108 or 109) includes: a first partial connector part (part or portion of 105 separated by 111 towards 108) which electrically connects some conductors (105) of the plurality of conductors (105) included in the cable part externally ([0004,0010,0022]); and a second partial connector part (part or portion of 108 or 109 at 111) which is cut in a lengthwise direction of the cable part and separated differently from the first partial connector part (portion of 105 not cut) to connect other some conductors (105) externally ([0004,0010,0022]).
Regarding Claim 17, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 16 wherein a first partial connector part and a second partial connector part are separated from each other and have different lengths up to ends thereof.
Tarte teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 5,6) wherein a first partial connector part (a portion of 108 away from 111) and a second partial connector part (a portion of 108 at 111) are separated (portions of 108 with differing lengths shown and those portions are separated) from each other and have different lengths up to ends thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cable as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein a first partial connector part and a second partial connector part are separated from each other and have different lengths up to ends thereof as taught by Tarte, in order to improved sensitivity, reduce the length of a conductor, to reduce undesirable electromagnetic radiation, minimize electromagnetic radiation from emitted or received signal, reduce interference and improve the overall electromagnetic characteristics of the device (Tarte, Abstract [0002-0009,0024,0025]).
Regarding Claim 18, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not explicitly disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, further comprising: a second connector part which is positioned at another end of the cable part to electrically connect some conductors included in the cable part externally.
Tarte further teaches of the flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,4), according to claim 1, comprising: a first connector part (102) and a second connector part (104) which is positioned at another end of the cable part (100) to electrically connect some conductors (105) included in the cable part (100) externally ([0020-0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, further comprising: a second connector part which is positioned at another end of the cable part to electrically connect some conductors included in the cable part externally as taught by Tarte, in order to electrically connect a first set of contacts to another set of contacts, allow for connection to a connector, provide connection from a source and conduct signals within or into or out of a device (Tarte, Abstract [0002-0005,0022-0025]).
Regarding Claim 19, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 18, wherein the second connector part includes: a first partial end connector part which connects some conductors of multiple conductors included in the cable part externally; and a second partial end connector part which is cut in a lengthwise direction of the cable part and separated differently from the first partial end connector part to connect other conductors externally.
Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) teaches of a flexible printed circuit (Fig 5-6), wherein a second connector part (102) includes: a first partial end connector part (part or portion of 108 not at 111) which connects some conductors (105) of multiple conductors included in the cable part (100) externally ([0004,0010,0022]); and a second partial end connector part (part or portion of 108 at 111) which is cut in a lengthwise direction of the cable part and separated differently from the first partial end connector part (part or portion of 108 not at 111) to connect other conductors (105) externally.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the second connector part includes: a first partial end connector part which connects some conductors of multiple conductors included in the cable part externally; and a second partial end connector part which is cut in a lengthwise direction of the cable part and separated differently from the first partial end connector part to connect other conductors externally as taught by Tarte, in order to improved sensitivity, reduce the length of a conductor, to reduce undesirable electromagnetic radiation, minimize electromagnetic radiation from emitted or received signal, reduce interference and improve the overall electromagnetic characteristics of the device (Tarte, Abstract [0002-0009,0024,0025]).
Regarding Claim 20, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Tarte further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 19, wherein the first partial end connector part (part or portion of 108 not at 111) and the second partial end connector part (part or portion of 108 at 111) are separated (note that the structural limitations and periphery of this claimed part is not claimed; see Fig 5-6 showing conductors are separated from one another in a region of 111 and a region in 108 not at 111) from each other and have different lengths (see Fig 5-6) up to ends thereof.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang (US 8,779,292 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, wherein the terminal connection part includes a support line which physically supports a connection of the surface-mount terminal using a conductor not electrically connected to the surface-mount terminal.
Wang (US 8,779,292 B2) teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 2; Column 3, lines 4-60), wherein a terminal connection part (part or portion about 232,234) includes a support line (234; bonding of line 234 provides some mechanical support to the bonding of the circuit board to a connector; Column 3, lines 4-60) which physically supports a connection of a surface-mount terminal (232) using a conductor (230 at 234) not electrically connected to the surface-mount terminal (portion or part at 232).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the terminal connection part includes a support line which physically supports a connection of the surface-mount terminal using a conductor not electrically connected to the surface-mount terminal as taught by Wang, in order to increase bond strength and prevent detachment (Wang, Column 1, lines 15-66,Column 3, lines 4-60).
Claim(s) 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Castillo (US 2009/0122509 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, wherein the cable part includes: a first branch cable part branching in a lengthwise direction and including a first number of conductors among the plurality of conductors, and a second branch cable part including a second conductors different from the first number of conductors among the plurality of conductors.
Castillo (US 2009/0122509 A1) teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,7), wherein a cable part (8) includes: a first branch cable part (a first cable branch 6,8) branching in a lengthwise direction (e.g. left-right direction) and including a first number of conductors (7) among the plurality of conductors (7), and a second branch cable part (an adjacent 6,8) including a second conductors (7) different from the first number of conductors among the plurality of conductors (7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the cable part includes: a first branch cable part branching in a lengthwise direction and including a first number of conductors among the plurality of conductors, and a second branch cable part including a second conductors different from the first number of conductors among the plurality of conductors as taught by Castillo, in order to meet desired measurements, meet specific needs, provide great versatility, capacity for adaptation, and allow for installation for access and connection to a variety of systems, such as those in a vehicle (Castillo, Abstract, [0002,0006,0046,0047,0053]]).
Regarding Claim 7, Fuerst in view of Tarte and Castillo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Castillo further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,7) according to claim 6, wherein the first branch cable part (6,8) or the second branch cable part (6,8) includes a bent portion (about 9) bent at a predetermined angle (see Fig 1) in a widthwise direction of the cable part (8) to be electrically connected to an external device (Abstract, [0002,0006,0046,0053]).
Regarding Claim 8, Fuerst in view of Tarte and Castillo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Fuerst in view of Tarte already teaches the first and second films.
Castillo further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,7) according to claim 7, wherein the bent portion (about 9) is indicated by a bent line (see Fig 1 and 7 showing a bent line at the angled end of 8) on a portion of the first film or the second film where the first branch cable part (6,8) or the second branch cable part (6,8) is bent.
Regarding Claim 9, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, wherein the cable part includes a folding portion in which some conductors among the plurality of conductors are cut to generate a cut point and folded.
Castillo (US 2009/0122509 A1) teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1,7), wherein a cable part (6,8) includes a folding portion (see portion about 9) in which some conductors (7) among the plurality of conductors are cut ([0046] “user can cut them to the desired width. There are two main manufacturing methods: by lamination or by extrusion. During the assembly of the wiring system of the present invention, the cables (8) are cut to the desired measurement according to the specific needs of the wiring system”) to generate a cut point (point or location where the user can cut them to a desired width) and folded ([0047] see Fig 1,7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the cable part includes a folding portion in which some conductors among the plurality of conductors are cut to generate a cut point and folded as taught by Castillo, in order to meet desired measurements, meet specific needs, provide great versatility, capacity for adaptation, and allow for installation for access and connection to a variety of systems, such as those in a vehicle (Castillo, Abstract, [0002,0006,0046,0047,0053]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) and Castillo (US 2009/0122509 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Su (US 2015/0237716 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Fuerst in view of Tarte and Castillo teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 9, wherein the folding portion includes a support hole portion to prevent tearing at the cut point.
Su (US 2015/0237716 A1) teaches of a flexible printed circuit (Fig 9), wherein a folding portion ([0029-0035] “folding operation”) includes a support hole portion (5) to prevent tearing at a cut point (2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte and Castillo, wherein the folding portion includes a support hole portion to prevent tearing at the cut point as taught by Su, in order to prevent tearing created by stresses during folding or stretching (Su, [0029-0035]).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Diekmann (US 2015/0237718 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, wherein the terminal connection part includes a coupling tool fastening portion which electrically connects some exposed conductors externally using a coupling tool by perforating some conductors exposed to some areas of the first film and the second film corresponding to the some exposed conductors.
Diekmann (US 2015/0237718 A1) teaches of a flexible printed circuit (Fig 1-3), wherein a terminal connection part (9) includes a coupling tool (30) fastening portion (about 11,13) which electrically connects ([0008-0019,0069-0083]) some exposed conductors (11a,11b) externally using a coupling tool (30) by perforating (13a,13b; [0081]) some conductors (11) exposed to some areas of a first film (3; [0070]) and a second film (7; [0070]) corresponding to the some exposed conductors (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the terminal connection part includes a coupling tool fastening portion which electrically connects some exposed conductors externally using a coupling tool by perforating some conductors exposed to some areas of the first film and the second film corresponding to the some exposed conductors as taught by Diekmann, in order to provide a mechanical and electrical connection, prevent breaking and impairment of electrical connections(Diekmann, [0004-0019,0069-0083]).
Regarding Claim 12, Fuerst in view of Tarte and Diekmann teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Diekmann further teaches the flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 1-3) according to claim 11, wherein the coupling tool (30) is a rivet or bolt made of a material ([0031]) conducting electricity.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2002/0081894 A1) in view of Tarte (US 2007/0256855 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Joshi (US 2004/0055784 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Fuerst in view of Tarte teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Fuerst does not explicitly disclose the flat flexible printed circuit according to claim 1, wherein the terminal connection part includes a bonding portion which electrically connects some exposed conductors externally by applying bonding agents to some conductors exposed to some area of the first film.
Joshi (US 2004/0055784 A1) teaches of a flat flexible printed circuit (Fig 11-12), wherein a terminal connection part (14) includes a bonding portion (24; [0025-0029]) which electrically connects ([0025-0029]) some exposed conductors (14) externally (18) by applying bonding agents ([0025-0029] “solder material”) to some conductors (14) exposed to some area of a first film (22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit as taught by Fuerst in view of Tarte, wherein the terminal connection part includes a bonding portion which electrically connects some exposed conductors externally by applying bonding agents to some conductors exposed to some area of the first film as taught by Joshi, in order to provide mating, provide and facilitate an electrical connection, provide fusion of materials, and allow for preapplication of a material before assembly (Joshi, [0022-0029]).
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 ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896