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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/043939 filed on November 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 26, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (US 11,316,264).
In regards to claim 1, Ryu et al. teaches a wiring body (see figure 7) comprising: an electrode (112); and a terminal (114), wherein the electrode (112) and the terminal (114) each have a conductor pattern (mesh pattern, abstract) including a plurality of openings (spaces/pores in the mesh; see figure 7), and the terminal (130) has, on the conductor pattern (see figure 7), a conductor layer (116) extending in a planar shape so as to cover at least a part of the conductor pattern (112; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 2, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1, wherein the conductor pattern including the plurality of openings is a mesh-like conductor pattern (see mesh pattern in figure 7).
In regards to claim 6, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1, wherein a sum of thicknesses of the conductor pattern of the terminal and the conductor layer (130, see figure 6) is larger than a thickness of a conductor pattern of the electrode (see figure 6).
In regards to claim 7, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the conductor layer (116) is larger than a thickness of the conductor pattern of the terminal (130) (figure 6).
In regards to claim 9, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1, wherein the conductor layer (116) contains silver (electrode lines included in the mesh structure may be formed of a low-resistance metal such as copper (column 6, lines 5-10)), and the conductor pattern contains copper (column 6, lines 5-10).
In regards to claim 10, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1, wherein the conductor layer contains copper, and the conductor pattern contains copper (column 6, lines 5-10).
In regards to claim 11, Ryu et al. teaches a display device (210) comprising the wiring body (figure 6) according to claim 1.
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.
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) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 11,316,264).
In regards to claim 3, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1.
Ryu et al. does not teach in plan view, an outer edge of the conductor layer is located inside an outer edge of the conductor pattern in the terminal.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made an outer edge of the conductor layer is located inside an outer edge of the conductor pattern in the terminal, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regards to claim 8, Ryu et al. teaches the wiring body according to claim 1.
Ryu et al. does not teach the surface roughness of the conductor layer is greater than surface roughness of the conductor pattern of the terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the wiring body of Ryu et al. the surface roughness of the conductor layer is greater than surface roughness of the conductor pattern of the terminal since it is well-known in engineering and manufacturing to intentionally roughen a conductive surface (substrate) more than the terminal surface (coating/plating), specifically to promote adhesion to insulating materials (like PCBs or epoxy) while keeping the contact interface smooth for electrical performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 3, a combination of limitations that wherein the resin portion has a mesh-like trench, the conductor pattern of the terminal is provided in the trench, and the terminal has a region in which a height position of an interface b:tween the conductor layer and the conductor pattern is different from a height position of a surface of the resin portion. 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. Please see the attachment of the USPTO-892 form.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848