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 filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that Shinoda did not disclose “the gap is filled with flowing adhesive”.
The Examiner takes position that this is a product claim regardless the method used, the final product is the same. The adhesive 222 occupied a space or a gap. How the adhesive 222 get into that space whether through flowing, or injection, is irrelevant. The final structure is an adhesive occupied a space that was empty if the adhesive was not there.
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) 12, 16, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinoda (US 8106312).
Regarding claim 12, Shinoda discloses an flexible printed circuit (FPC 180, Fig. 13) mounting module, comprising:
a mounting part (the mounting apparatus in Fig. 2, for mounting the flexible circuit board such as 180, 181, 182) provided with a mounting hole (the hole in the gasket 10, or the gap between the cases 6 & 8); and
an FPC (180, Fig. 13) penetrating the mounting hole, wherein there is a gap between the FPC and an inner wall surface of the mounting hole (gap between 180 and gasket 10);
a first surface of the FPC is glued to a first wall surface of the mounting hole by using a first adhesive part (the adhesive 221 is in contact with a surface of the gasket 10 and hold the FPC 180 in place); and
the gap is filled with flowing adhesive, to form a second adhesive part (the rest of the gap is filled with the adhesive 222), and the FPC is sealed in and fastened to the mounting hole by using the second adhesive part.
Regarding claim 16, Shinoda discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 12. Shinoda further suggests a cross-sectional shape of the mounting hole is a trapezoid (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Shinoda discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a flexible printed circuit mounting module (Fig. 2), comprising:
a mounting part (cases 6, 8, gasket 10) provided with a mounting hole (the hole in the gasket 10; Fig. 13); and
a FPC (FPC 180, Fig. 13) penetrating the mounting hole, wherein there is a gap (the gap containing 180 and adhesive 221, 222) between the FPC and an inner wall surface of the mounting hole;
a first surface of the FPC is glued to a first wall surface of the mounting hole by using a first adhesive part (the adhesive 221 is in contact with a surface of the gasket 10 and hold the FPC 180 in place); and
the gap is filled with flowing adhesive, to form a second adhesive part (the rest of the gap is filled with the adhesive 222), and the FPC is sealed in and fastened to the mounting hole by using the second adhesive part.
Regarding claim 21, Shinoda discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17. Shinoda further suggests a cross-sectional shape of the mounting hole is a trapezoid (Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 8106312), in view of Komiyama (US 7251512 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Shinoda discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17.
Shinoda does not explicitly disclose the electronic device is a foldable electronic device comprising a first device body, a second device body, and a rotating shaft, and the first device body and the second device body are rotatably connected by using the rotating shaft; and the first device body has a middle frame and a rear cover, a side frame of the middle frame close to the rotating shaft and the rear cover form the mounting part, a mounting slot is disposed on the side frame of the middle frame, and the mounting slot and the rear cover are enclosed to form the mounting hole.
Komiyama suggests the electronic device is a foldable electronic device (the foldable device in fig. 1a and 1b) comprising a first device body (top side body), a second device body (bottom side body), and a rotating shaft (the hinge having the shaft 4a between the two bodies), and the first device body and the second device body are rotatably connected by using the rotating shaft; and the first device body has a middle frame (the side of the housing near the part 9a and 9b) and a rear cover (the back cover of the housing), a side frame of the middle frame close to the rotating shaft and the rear cover form the mounting part, a mounting slot (the slot near a water drop 11, Fig. 2) is disposed on the side frame of the middle frame, and the mounting slot and the rear cover are enclosed to form the mounting hole.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form a mounting slot between two housing having a flexible circuit in between in order to electrically connect two circuit boards in the two housing of the foldable device together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
Claims 13 – 15, 18 – 20, 22 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 12, a combination of limitations that the FPC mounting module further comprises a bracket and a third adhesive part, the bracket is glued to a second surface of the FPC by using the third adhesive part, the second surface of the FPC is opposite to the first surface, the bracket is press-fitted between the third adhesive part and a second wall surface of the mounting hole, and the second wall surface of the mounting hole is opposite to the first wall surface; and the FPC, the first adhesive part, the bracket, and the third adhesive part are sealed in and fastened to the mounting hole by using the second adhesive part. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 17, a combination of limitations that the FPC mounting module further comprises a bracket and a third adhesive part, the bracket is glued to a second surface of the FPC by using the third adhesive part, the second surface of the FPC is opposite to the first surface, the bracket is press-fitted between the third adhesive part and a second wall surface of the mounting hole, and the second wall surface of the mounting hole is opposite to the first wall surface; and the FPC, the first adhesive part, the bracket, and the third adhesive part are all sealed in and fastened to the mounting hole by using the second adhesive part. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 17, a combination of limitations that the electronic device has a button, and a side frame of a middle frame of the electronic device disposed opposite to the button and a rear cover of the electronic device form the mounting part; and a mounting slot is disposed on the side frame of the middle frame, and the mounting slot and the rear cover of the electronic device are enclosed to form the mounting hole. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 24, a combination of limitations that the electronic device has a button, a side frame of a middle frame of the electronic device disposed opposite to the button and a rear cover of the electronic device form a mounting part of the second FPC mounting module, a second mounting slot is disposed on the side frame of the middle frame of the electronic device disposed opposite to the button, and the second mounting slot and the rear cover of the electronic device are enclosed to form a mounting hole of the second FPC mounting module. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi (US 8178794) discloses a sealing gap for a flexible circuit board, Fig. 3.
Hayashi (US 20100176533) discloses a sealing gap for a flexible circuit board, Fig. 2.
Hayashi (US 20090250261) discloses a sealing gap for a flexible circuit board, Fig. 2.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BINH B TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 6:00 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 J 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.
/BINH B TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848