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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 27 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “each battery cells” (plural) which should be “each battery cell” (singular). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “is oriented at an approximately 45 degrees” and it is recommended to amend this to “[[is]] are oriented at [[an]] approximately 45 degrees” for clarity.
Claim 30 recites “the flexible PCB” twice in line 5 and line 7 and “the folded flexible PCB” twice in line 9. It is recommended to change the former to “the folded flexible PCB” for consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites “a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB), wherein a bend axis that delineates an upper portion of the flexible PCB and a lower portion of the flexible PCB, a plurality of battery cells” in lines 4-6 and it is unclear what is meant by the limitation. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the folded flexible PCB comprises a bend axis that delineates an upper portion of the flexible PCB and a lower portion of the flexible PCB, a plurality of battery cells”.
Claims 31-35 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 30.
Claim 36 recites “the laminate layer” in lines 2-3 and there is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. This could be changed to “the first laminate layer”.
Claim 37 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 30.
Claim 38 recites “a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB), wherein a bend axis that delineates an upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and a lower portion of the folded flexible PCB; a plurality of battery cells” in lines 3-5 and it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted as “a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the folded flexible PCB comprises a bend axis that delineates an upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and a lower portion of the folded flexible PCB; a plurality of battery cells”.
Claim 38 recites “the laminate layer” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This could be changed to “the first laminate layer”.
Claims 39-40 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 38.
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.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250) and Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199).
Regarding claim 21, Ayub discloses a conformal wearable battery shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ayub discloses a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 1); and a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB) (flexible substrate 65) comprising: a bend axis (colinear with the longitudinal axis of support rod 75, Fig. 5) that delineates an upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and a lower portion of the folded flexible PCB, wherein each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is affixed to the folded flexible PCB (figures and shown above).
Ayub discloses a central member (dielectric sheet 80) positioned between and affixed (“applied there between”, para. [0026], which must be affixed otherwise the upper and lower portion would separate between the bend axes) to the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB which is a “stiffener” at least because it is additional material adding to the overall stiffness of the device and which is presumably non-metallic (“dielectric”) or otherwise Dinh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in flexible printed circuit boards (pars. [0141] and [0145]) and Dinh et al. teaches the use of dielectric material including fiber material (para. [0192]) and the use of fiberglass as a rigid material (pars. [0381] and [0408]) and the use of a stiffener (stiffener 2084) which may be constructed of dielectric material (e.g., glass, para. [0145]) for a flexible printed circuit board (prior art flexible circuit 2052 with stiffener 2054, para. [0140] or flex circuit 2082 with stiffener 2084, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein a central stiffener is positioned between and affixed to the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB, the central stiffener comprising a non-metallic laminate layer (Dinh et al., such as glass, ceramic, plastic or other suitable material, para. [0145]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a stiffener in order to prevent damage to the flexible printed circuit board (Dinh et al., para. [0145]).
Ayub does not expressly disclose the use of fiber material for a stiffener and as discussed above, Dinh et al. discloses a circuit board may be made rigid with the use of fibers (fiberglass-filled epoxy, pars. [0122], [0143]), flexible circuit boards may include rigid portions (para. [0408]) and protective members (bumpers 4630) may comprise fiber (materials such as fiberglass and carbon fiber composites that include fibers bound together with a resin binder, para. [0428]), but Dinh et al. does not expressly state that the stiffener comprises a fiber.
However, Sung et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in printed circuit boards (printed circuit board stiffener for improving heat dissipation characteristics and improving mechanical strength, para. [0023]) and Sung et al. teaches the stiffener may be a non-metallic (resin, para. [0001], Fig. 1) laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
293
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener comprises a non-metallic laminate layer that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a woven fiber stiffener, resulting in a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle with an edge (at least some portion of the fibers as shown above), in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Further, Masaya et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in a device comprising battery cells (“flameproof sheet 3 may be composed of a material with shock-absorbing properties and a fiber with flameproofness”, Abstract) and Masaya et al. discloses the fiber may be carbon fiber or aramid fiber (para. [0024]), which is also a dielectric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub by using fibers such as aramid fiber in the central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use aramid fiber in order to allow for flameproofing and shock-absorbing properties, Masaya et al., Abstract).
Assuming, arguendo, that a central stiffener is not disclosed in Ayub in view of Dinh et al., Rosenau et al. teaches a folded flexible circuit (Abstract) having a flexible substrate with a bend axis (substrate 217) and Rosenau et al. further teaches a central stiffener is used between upper and lower portions (Fig. 5B) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
333
769
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the stiffener is a central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a central stiffener in order to provide support for both the upper and lower portion.
Regarding claim 26, Ayub does not disclose a plurality of fibers.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven (claim 1, Fig. 1) with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth (claim 1) embedded within the laminate layer (running perpendicular to a first plurality of fibers and running into the page, Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
393
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use woven pluralities of fibers in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Claims 22-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250) and Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199A1) as applied to claim 21 or claim 26 above and in further view of Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877).
Regarding claim 22, Ayub does not disclose a plurality of fibers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of circuit boards (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches wherein a first plurality of fibers in a laminate layer is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (col. 6, lines 2-3 and lines 25-28).
Likewise, Isayev discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a first plurality of fibers in a laminate layer is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (col. 9, lines 15-18, Fig. 5B) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
565
778
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers in the laminate layer is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a 45-degree angle for fibers as a known configuration for increasing strength and/or stiffness.
Regarding claim 23, Ayub does not disclose a plurality of fibers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of circuit boards (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers of fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) and Isayev likewise discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a second laminate layer secured to the laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the laminate layer (Fig. 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener includes a second laminate layer secured to the laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminate layers with fibers as a known configuration for increasing strength and/or stiffness.
Regarding claim 24, Ayub does not disclose a plurality of fibers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. at least teaches a first (fibers 46) and a second plurality of fibers (fibers 48) oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (col. 7, line 54, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Isayev discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a first plurality of fibers in a laminate layer is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge and a second laminate layer comprising a second plurality of fibers is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (Fig. 5B) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
594
1038
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener includes a second laminate layer comprising a second plurality of fibers oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminates having a 45-degree angle for fibers as a known configuration for increasing stiffness.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of the above cited references for claim 24 discloses
wherein the first plurality of fibers is oriented in an approximately perpendicular direction to the second plurality of fibers (Isayev, Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 27, Ayub does not disclose a plurality of fibers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of circuit boards (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches wherein a first (fibers 46) and a second plurality of fibers (fibers 48) in a laminate layer are oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (col. 6, lines 2-3 and lines 25-28).
Likewise, Isayev discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a first plurality of fibers in a laminate layer is oriented at approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the laminate layer (col. 9, lines 15-18, Fig. 5B) and a second plurality of fibers is oriented at an approximately 45 degrees relative to the lower edge of the laminate layer in an approximately perpendicular direction to the first plurality of fibers (Fig. 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers is oriented at an approximately 45 degrees relative to the lower edge of the laminate layer; and
wherein the second plurality of fibers is oriented at an approximately 45 degrees relative to the lower edge of the laminate layer in an approximately perpendicular direction to the first plurality of fibers.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a 45-degree angle for fibers as a known configuration for increasing strength and/or stiffness.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250) and Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199A1) as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20160316557) and Sieck (US 20200146263).
Regarding claim 28, Ayub is silent as to epoxy resin.
However, Lee et al. discloses a device (circuit board 100) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards and Lee et al. teaches using epoxy resins with an added stiffener such as glass fiber and Lee et al. further teaches the resin with glass fiber stiffener may be flame retardant 4 (FR-4, para. [0078]).
Likewise, Sieck discloses a device (circuit board 130) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards and Sieck teaches using FR-4 as a stiffener (para. [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the laminate layer includes an epoxy resin that is flame resistant.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select FR-4 as a known material for circuit board stiffeners as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250) and Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199A1) as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Hsieh et al. (US 6682802).
Regarding claim 29, Ayub does not disclose fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches a first plurality of fibers (fibers 503 or 505, Fig. 5) comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known configurations for increasing stiffness and strength in circuit boards such as by employing fibers which extend between edges of a laminate layer.
Claims 30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250), Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A), Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199).
Regarding claim 30, Ayub discloses a conformal wearable battery (shown above for claim 21) that includes a housing (jacket 100) that receives a battery cell core pack assembly (as shown in Fig. 1), comprising: a battery cell core pack assembly (Fig. 1) comprising: a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB) (flexible substrate 65), wherein a bend axis that delineates an upper portion of the flexible PCB and a lower portion of the flexible PCB (as best understood, colinear with the longitudinal axis of support rod 75, Fig. 5 and shown above for claim 21); a plurality of battery cells affixed to the flexible PCB (battery cells 1).
Ayub discloses a central member (dielectric sheet 80) positioned between the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB (Fig. 5, shown above for claim 21) and which is a “stiffener” at least because it is additional material adding to the overall stiffness of the device and which is presumably non-metallic (“dielectric”) or otherwise Dinh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in flexible printed circuit boards (pars. [0141] and [0145]) and Dinh et al. teaches the use of dielectric material including fiber material (para. [0192]) and the use of fiberglass as a rigid material (pars. [0381] and [0408]) and the use of a stiffener (stiffener 2084) which may be constructed of dielectric material (e.g., glass, para. [0145]) for a flexible printed circuit board (prior art flexible circuit 2052 with stiffener 2054, para. [0140] or flex circuit 2082 with stiffener 2084, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub to include a non-metallic central stiffener (Dinh et al., such as glass, ceramic, plastic or other suitable material, para. [0145]) positioned between the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a stiffener in order to prevent damage to the flexible printed circuit board (Dinh et al., para. [0145]).
Ayub does not expressly disclose the use of fiber material for a stiffener and as discussed above, Dinh et al. discloses a circuit board may be made rigid with the use of fibers (fiberglass-filled epoxy, pars. [0122], [0143]), flexible circuit boards may include rigid portions (para. [0408]) and protective members (bumpers 4630) may comprise fiber (materials such as fiberglass and carbon fiber composites that include fibers bound together with a resin binder, para. [0428]), but Dinh et al. does not expressly state that the stiffener comprises a fiber.
However, Sung et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in printed circuit boards (printed circuit board stiffener for improving heat dissipation characteristics and improving mechanical strength, para. [0023]) and Sung et al. teaches the stiffener may be a non-metallic (resin, para. [0001], Fig. 1) laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1, shown above for claim 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener comprises a laminate layer that includes a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a woven fiber stiffener, resulting in a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle with an edge (at least some portion of the fibers as shown above for claim 21), in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Further, Masaya et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in a device comprising battery cells (“flameproof sheet 3 may be composed of a material with shock-absorbing properties and a fiber with flameproofness”, Abstract) and Masaya et al. discloses the fiber may be carbon fiber or aramid fiber (para. [0024], which is also a dielectric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub by using fibers such as aramid fiber in the central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use aramid fiber in order to allow for flameproofing and shock-absorbing properties, Masaya et al., Abstract).
The above-cited references do not expressly disclose the central stiffener includes a plurality of laminate layers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of circuit boards (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers of fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) wherein a first plurality of fibers (fibers 46 or fibers 48) in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at a first acute angle relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 3) and Isayev likewise discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a plurality of laminate layers (Fig. 5B), wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers (fibers 20), wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at a first acute angle relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener includes a plurality of laminate layers, wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers, wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at a first acute angle relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminate layers with fibers as a known configuration for increasing strength and/or stiffness.
Assuming, arguendo, that a central stiffener is not disclosed in Ayub in view of Dinh et al., Rosenau et al. teaches a folded flexible circuit (Abstract) having a flexible substrate with a bend axis (substrate 217) and Rosenau et al. further teaches a central stiffener is used between upper and lower portions (Fig. 5B) as shown above for claim 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the stiffener is a central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a central stiffener in order to provide support for both the upper and lower portion.
Regarding claim 32, Ayub does not expressly disclose fibers.
However, Isayev further teaches wherein the first acute angle is approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the first laminate layer, and the second acute angle is approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B, col. 4, lines 49-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first acute angle is approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the first laminate layer, and the second acute angle is approximately 45 degrees to the lower edge of the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminates having a 45-degree angle for fibers as a known configuration for increasing stiffness.
Regarding claim 33, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 32 discloses the first plurality of fibers is oriented in an approximately perpendicular direction to the second plurality of fibers (Isayev, Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24).
Regarding claim 34, Ayub does not disclose a woven cloth.
However, Sung et al. further teaches a laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer (Fig. 1, claim 1, shown above for claim 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a woven cloth configuration in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Claims 31 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Dinh et al. (US 20110255250), Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A), Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199A1) as applied to claim 30 or claim 34 above and in further view of Hsieh et al. (US 6682802).
Regarding claim 31, Ayub does not expressly disclose a plurality of laminate layers.
However, Isayev further teaches wherein a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer (as indicated in Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24), wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B); and wherein the second laminate layer comprises a second plurality of fibers, wherein the second plurality of fibers is oriented at a second acute angle to the lower edge of the first laminate layer and in an opposing direction to the first plurality of fibers (Fig. 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer; and wherein the second laminate layer comprises a second plurality of fibers, wherein the second plurality of fibers is oriented at a second acute angle to the lower edge of the first laminate layer and in an opposing direction to the first plurality of fibers.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminates with fibers having an acute angle with edges as a known configuration for increasing stiffness.
Assuming, arguendo, that Isayev does not disclose laminate layers are secured to each other; Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches it is conventional to secure laminate layers (cured or glued together, col. 4, line 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the laminate layers are secured together.
The person of ordinary a skill in the art would have found it obvious to secure laminate layers together to prevent them from coming apart.
Regarding claim 35, Ayub does not disclose fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches a first plurality of fibers (fibers 503 or 505, Fig. 5) comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known configurations for increasing stiffness and strength in circuit boards such as by employing fibers which extend between edges of a laminate layer.
Regarding claim 36, Ayub does not disclose fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein a plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches a plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches a first plurality of fibers and a second plurality of fibers (fibers 503 or 505 on separate layers, Fig. 5) comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer (each layer is shown to have fibers extending between edges, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the second plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known configurations for increasing stiffness and strength in circuit boards such as by employing fibers which extend between edges of a laminate layer.
Regarding claim 37, Ayub does not disclose fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches a first plurality of fibers (fibers 503 or 505, Fig. 5) comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known configurations for increasing stiffness and strength in circuit boards such as by employing fibers which extend between edges of a laminate layer.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayub (US 20130295434) in view of Thiel et al. (US 20180062197), Dinh et al. (US 20110255250), Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A), Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877) and with or without Masaya et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019032923A) and/or Rosenau et al. (US 20050012199A1) and/or Hsieh et al. (US 6682802).
Regarding claim 38, Ayub discloses a battery cell core pack assembly (Fig. 1 and shown housed in Fig. 8) comprising: a folded flexible printed circuit board (PCB) (flexible substrate 65), wherein a bend axis (colinear with the longitudinal axis of support rod 75, Fig. 5) that delineates an upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and a lower portion of the folded flexible PCB (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 and shown above for claim 21); a plurality of battery cells (battery cells 1) affixed to the flexible PCB (Fig. 1).
Ayub appears to disclose pouch cell batteries (Fig. 1), but this is not explicitly stated.
However, Thiel et al. discloses a system comprising a wearable battery and PCB (Abstract) and teaches the use of pouch cell batteries (para. [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is a pouch cell type battery.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use pouch cell batteries in order to provide efficient use of space and lighter weight (Thiel et al., para. [0156]).
Ayub discloses a central member (dielectric sheet 80) positioned between the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB (Fig. 5, shown above for claim 21) and which is a “stiffener” at least because it is additional material adding to the overall stiffness of the device or otherwise Dinh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in flexible printed circuit boards (pars. [0141] and [0145]) and Dinh et al. teaches the use of dielectric material including fiber material (para. [0192]) and the use of fiberglass as a rigid material (pars. [0381] and [0408]) and the use of a stiffener (stiffener 2084) which may be constructed of dielectric material (e.g., glass, para. [0145]) for a flexible printed circuit board (prior art flexible circuit 2052 with stiffener 2054, para. [0140] or flex circuit 2082 with stiffener 2084, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub to include a central stiffener (Dinh et al., such as glass, ceramic, plastic or other suitable material, para. [0145]) positioned between the upper portion of the folded flexible PCB and the lower portion of the folded flexible PCB.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a stiffener in order to prevent damage to the flexible printed circuit board (Dinh et al., para. [0145]).
Ayub does not expressly disclose the use of fiber material for a stiffener and as discussed above, Dinh et al. discloses a circuit board may be made rigid with the use of fibers (fiberglass-filled epoxy, pars. [0122], [0143]), flexible circuit boards may include rigid portions (para. [0408]) and protective members (bumpers 4630) may comprise fiber (materials such as fiberglass and carbon fiber composites that include fibers bound together with a resin binder, para. [0428]), but Dinh et al. does not expressly state that the stiffener comprises a fiber.
However, Sung et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in printed circuit boards (printed circuit board stiffener for improving heat dissipation characteristics and improving mechanical strength, para. [0023]) and Sung et al. teaches the stiffener may be in a laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1, shown above for claim 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the central stiffener comprises a laminate layer that includes a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a woven fiber stiffener, resulting in a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle with an edge (at least some portion of the fibers as shown above for claim 21), in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Further, Masaya et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing shock/damage in a device comprising battery cells (“flameproof sheet 3 may be composed of a material with shock-absorbing properties and a fiber with flameproofness”, Abstract) and Masaya et al. discloses the fiber may be carbon fiber or aramid fiber (para. [0024], which is also a dielectric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub by using fibers such as aramid fiber in the central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use aramid fiber in order to allow for flameproofing and shock-absorbing properties, Masaya et al., Abstract).
The above-cited references do not expressly disclose the central stiffener includes a plurality of laminate layers.
However, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of circuit boards (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers of fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) wherein a first plurality of fibers (fibers 46 or fibers 48) in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at a first acute angle relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 3) and Isayev likewise discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing stiffness of articles (col. 7, lines 12-13) and Isayev teaches a plurality of laminate layers (Fig. 5B), wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers (fibers 20), wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59) and a second plurality of fibers in a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to the lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub to include a central stiffener positioned between the upper portion and the lower portion of the flexible PCB, the central stiffener comprising a plurality of laminate layers, wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers, wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer and a second plurality of fibers in a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at an angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to the lower edge of the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminate layers with fibers as a known configuration for increasing strength and/or stiffness.
Ayub does not disclose a continuous fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1).
Likewise, Caron et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of increasing the strength of a circuit board (col. 2, line 28) and Caron et al. teaches the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3).
Likewise, Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches a first plurality of fibers (fibers 503 or 505, Fig. 5) comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known configurations for increasing stiffness and strength in circuit boards such as by employing fibers which extend between edges of a laminate layer.
Assuming, arguendo, that a central stiffener is not disclosed in Ayub in view of Dinh et al., Rosenau et al. teaches a folded flexible circuit (Abstract) having a flexible substrate with a bend axis (substrate 217) and Rosenau et al. further teaches a central stiffener is used between upper and lower portions (Fig. 5B) as shown above for claim 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the stiffener is a central stiffener.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a central stiffener in order to provide support for both the upper and lower portion.
Regarding claim 39, Ayub does not expressly disclose a plurality of laminate layers.
However, Isayev further teaches wherein the second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer (as indicated in Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24), wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use laminates secured together and comprising fiber as a known configuration for increasing stiffness (Isayev, col. 7, lines 11-13).
Assuming, arguendo, that Isayev does not disclose laminate layers are secured to each other; Hsieh et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of stiffening circuit boards (Abstract) and Hsieh et al. teaches it is conventional to secure laminate layers (cured or glued together, col. 4, line 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the laminate layers are secured together.
The person of ordinary a skill in the art would have found it obvious to secure laminate layers together to prevent them from coming apart.
Regarding claim 40, Ayub does not expressly disclose fiber.
However, Sung et al. further teaches a laminate layer with multiple pluralities of fibers woven together (seven separate groups of fibers shown in Fig. 1) to form a woven cloth (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Ayub wherein the first laminate layer further includes a third plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a woven cloth stiffener in order to improve mechanical strength of the stiffener (Sung et al., para. [0023]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,394,077 hereinafter “’077” in view of Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) and Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877).
Regarding claims 21 and 26, ‘077 claims the subject matter of claim 21 except that ‘077 does not claim a laminate layer that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle with a lower edge of the laminate layer and ‘077 does not claim a laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer. However, Sung et al. teaches a stiffener may be a non-metallic (resin, para. [0001], Fig. 1) laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1) and Sung et al. teaches a laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer (Fig. 1 and claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 wherein the stiffener comprises a plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge of the laminate layer and where the laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer.
Claims 22-25, 27 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,394,077 hereinafter “’077” in view of Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877).
Regarding claims 22-25 and 27, ‘077 does not claim a plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge, a first laminate layer with a plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge, a first plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees and a second laminate layer and/or with a second plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge. However, Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers of fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) wherein a first plurality of fibers (fibers 46 or fibers 48) in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 3, col. 6, line 28) and Isayev teaches a plurality of laminate layers (Fig. 5B), wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers (fibers 20), wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 wherein the stiffener includes a plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge, a first laminate layer with a plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge, a first plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees and a second laminate layer and/or with a second plurality of fibers oriented at 45 degrees to a lower edge.
Regarding claim 29, ‘077 does not claim a continuous fiber extending between two edges. However, Sung et al. further teaches wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1). Likewise, Caron et al. teaches the first plurality of fibers comprise at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,394,077 hereinafter “’077” in view of Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A) as applied to claim 21 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20160316557) and Sieck (US 20200146263).
Regarding claim 28, ‘077 does not claim the laminate layer includes epoxy resin that is flame resistant. However, Lee et al. teaches using epoxy resins with an added stiffener such as glass fiber and Lee et al. further teaches the resin with glass fiber stiffener may be flame retardant 4 (FR-4, para. [0078]). Likewise, Sieck teaches using FR-4 as a stiffener (para. [0070]) for a circuit board (circuit board 130). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 by using a laminate layer which includes epoxy resin that is flame resistant.
Claims 30-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,394,077 hereinafter “’077” in view of Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A), Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877).
Regarding claims 30-37, ‘077 claims the subject matter of claims 30-37 except that ‘077 does not claim a plurality of laminate layers each comprising a plurality of fibers oriented at 45-degree angles to a lower edge of a first laminate layer and where a second plurality of fibers is oriented approximately perpendicular to a first plurality of fibers and/or where the first laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer and where each plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer.
However, Sung et al. teaches a stiffener with a laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1, shown below) and Sung et al. teaches a laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer (Fig. 1 and claim 1) and where a plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1) and Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers having fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) wherein a first plurality of fibers (fibers 46 or fibers 48) in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 3, col. 6, line 28) and the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3) and Isayev teaches a plurality of laminate layers (Fig. 5B), wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers (fibers 20), wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59) and where fibers are arranged in an approximately perpendicular direction (Fig. 5B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 where a plurality of laminate layers each comprising a plurality of fibers oriented at 45-degree angles to a lower edge of a first laminate layer and where a second plurality of fibers is oriented approximately perpendicular to a first plurality of fibers and/or where the first laminate layer further includes a second plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer and where each plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of a laminate layer.
Claims 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,394,077 hereinafter “’077” in view of Sung et al. (attached translation of KR 20080045824A), Caron et al. (US 5997983) and Isayev (US 5275877).
Regarding claims 38-40, ‘077 claims the subject matter of claims 38-40 except that ‘077 does not claim a plurality of laminate layers each comprising a plurality of fibers oriented at a 45-degree angle relative to a lower edge of a first laminate layer, wherein at least one fiber is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layers and where a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer wherein the first laminate layer further includes a third plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer.
However, Sung et al. teaches a stiffener with a laminate layer (at least one lamina of carbon fiber reinforcement 120, Figs. 12a-i) that includes a first plurality of fibers oriented at an acute angle relative to a lower edge (Fig. 1) of the laminate layer (“laminating a reinforcing material formed by impregnating a resin or a metal base material with any one of carbon fibers of the present invention or a mixture thereof”, para. [0024], Fig. 1) and Sung et al. teaches a laminate layer further includes additional pluralities of fibers (Fig. 1) that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the laminate layer (Fig. 1 and claim 1) and where a plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers are shown to extend between edges, Fig. 1) and Caron et al. teaches using laminate layers having fibers (col. 6, lines 25-28) wherein a first plurality of fibers (fibers 46 or fibers 48) in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 3, col. 6, line 28) and the first plurality of fibers comprises at least one fiber that is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layer (the fibers extend between edges, Fig. 3) and Isayev teaches a plurality of laminate layers (Fig. 5B), wherein each laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers comprises a plurality of fibers (fibers 20), wherein a first plurality of fibers in a first laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is oriented at 45 degrees relative to a lower edge of the first laminate layer (Fig. 5B and shown above for claim 24, col. 4, lines 49-59) and where first and second laminate layers are adjacent and secured to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of ‘077 to include a plurality of laminate layers each comprising a plurality of fibers oriented at a 45-degree angle relative to a lower edge of a first laminate layer, wherein at least one fiber is continuous and extends between two edges of the laminate layers and where a second laminate layer of the plurality of laminate layers is secured to the first laminate layer, wherein the second laminate layer is adjacent to the first laminate layer wherein the first laminate layer further includes a third plurality of fibers that are woven with the first plurality of fibers to form a woven cloth embedded within the first laminate layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xin et al. (US 20200154558) discloses a dielectric part of a PCB may be composed of resin with glass fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights