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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda et al. (2022/0384998).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Matsuda et al. discloses an electronic device (Figs 4 & 6) comprising: a substrate (930) extending in a first direction (Y) and a second direction (X) intersecting the first direction; and a cable (1) including one end located on one side end surface in a third direction (Z) perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction of the substrate; wherein the cable includes: a conductive wire (110) extending in the first direction at one end of the cable; an insulating portion (20) covering the conductive wire; and a bottom plate portion (see annotated Figure above) protruding to one side in the first direction from one side end portion in the first direction of the insulating portion at one end of the cable and stretching in the second direction; and one side end portion in the first direction of the conductive wire is a conductive wire end portion drawn from the insulating portion to one side in the first direction, and is connected to one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate.
Re-claim 15, Matsuda et al. discloses a cable (1) comprising: one end located on one side end surface of a substrate extending in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, the one side end surface of the substrate extending in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction; a conductive wire (110) extending in the first direction at one end of the cable; an insulating portion (20) covering the conductive wire; and a bottom plate portion (see annotated Figure above) protruding to one side in the first direction from one side end portion in the first direction of the insulating portion at one end of the cable and stretching in the second direction; wherein one side end portion in the first direction of the conductive wire is a conductive wire end portion drawn from the insulating portion to one side in the first direction, and is connected to one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Oh et al. (11264146).
Matsuda et al. discloses an electronic device (Figs 4 & 6) comprising: a substrate (930) extending in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction; and a cable (1) including one end located on one side end surface in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction of the substrate; wherein the cable includes: a conductive wire (110) extending in the first direction at one end of the cable; an insulating portion (20) covering the conductive wire; one side end portion in the first direction of the conductive wire is a conductive wire end portion drawn from the insulating portion to one side in the first direction, and is connected to one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate; and at least a portion of an adhesive (990) located on the one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate (re-claims 1 and 14).
Matsuda et al. does not disclose an opening portion located on another end surface in the third direction of the insulating portion and opening at least to the other side in the third direction (re-claims 1 and 14).
Oh et al. discloses an electronic device comprising a cable an opening (215) located on an end surface in the third direction of an insulating portion and opening at least to the other side in the third direction.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the cable of Matsuda et al. to comprise an opening as taught by Oh et al. to provide a fixing means in the cable (Oh, col. 8, line 32). It is noted that in the modified electronic device of Matsuda et al., at least a portion of the adhesive (990, see Fig. 4) is located in the opening portion (taught by Oh).
Matsuda et al., as modified, also discloses that the opening portion penetrates the insulating portion in the third direction; a portion of the adhesive is located in the opening portion; and another portion of the adhesive is located on one side in the third direction relative to one side end surface in the third direction of the insulating portion, and covers the one side end surface in the third direction of the insulating portion along at least a portion of an outer edge of the opening portion as viewed from the third direction (re-claim 5); the adhesive is located between another side end surface in the third direction of the cable and one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate in at least a portion of an outer edge in another side end portion in the third direction of the opening portion (re-claim 7); an end portion of at least in the second direction of the insulating portion is an edge portion flat in the third direction; and the opening portion is located at the edge portion (re-claim 8); and the opening portion opens at an end portion in the second direction of the edge portion (re-claim 9); a width in the first direction of the opening portion is greater than a width in the second direction of the conductive wire (re-claim 10); and a fixing portion (72) to fix the cable onto one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate; wherein the fixing portion is located between the insulating portion (22) and the substrate (930) (re-claim 13).
Re-claims 6 and 11-12, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to choose suitable width for the opening portion in the modified cable of Matsuda et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting device since it has been that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. in view of Matsuda et al.
Oh et al. (Fig. 4) discloses a cable including one end located on one side end surface in a third direction perpendicular to a first direction and a second direction, wherein the cable includes a conductive wire (100) extending in the first direction at one end of the cable; an insulating portion (200) covering the conductive wire; and a bottom plate portion (underneath the conductive wire, integral with insulating 200) protruding to one side in the first direction from one side end portion in the first direction of the insulating portion at one end of the cable and stretching in the second direction (Fig. 4); and one side end portion in the first direction of the conductive wire (100) is a conductive wire end portion drawn from the insulating portion to one side in the first direction (re-claim 2).
Oh et al. does not disclose a substrate extending in the first direction and the second direction intersecting the first direction and the conductive wire being connected to one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate (re-claim 2).
Matsuda et al. discloses an electronic device comprising a substrate (930) extending in a firs direction (X) and a second direction (Y) intersecting the first direction; and a cable (1) including a conductive wire (110) being drawn from an insulating portion (20) to one side in the first direction and being connected to one side end surface in a third direction (Z) of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect the conductive wire of Oh et al. to one side end surface of a substrate as taught by Matsuda et al. such that the combined substrate and cable can be installed in a flat surface (i.e., the substate and cable extending in the same plane).
Re-claim 3, Oh et al. discloses the cable further including a protrusion plate portion (213) protruding from an end portion in the first direction of the insulating portion to one side in the first direction at one end of the cable; and a position of one side end portion in the first direction of the protrusion plate portion is on another side in the first direction relative to one side end portion in the first direction of the conductive wire end portion, and is different from one side end portion in the first direction of the bottom plate portion in the first direction.
Re-claim 4, Oh et al., as modified, discloses the cable further including an opening portion (215) located on another end surface in the third direction of the insulating portion and opening at least to the other side in the third direction; and at least a portion of an adhesive (990 of Matsuda) located on one side end surface in the third direction of the substrate is located in the opening portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the combination of Matsuda and Oh with respect to claims 1 and 14, applicant argues that the examiner has not provided any reasonable explanation for why one having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the cable of Matsuda to include the opening 215 taught by Oh If it were then going to be filled by the adhesive 990 of Matsuda. What possible functional purpose could the opening 215 of Oh provide if it is simply covered with the adhesive 990 of Matsuda? Further, how does filling the opening 215 of Oh with adhesive 990 of Matsuda aid in providing a fixing means in the cable of Matsuda as alleged by the examiner.
Examiner would disagree because examiner does provide a reason to modify the cable of Matsuda, “providing a fixing means in the cable.” Oh discloses opening 215 as a fixing portion to fix the cable to another component. Accordingly, providing the opening taught by Oh in the cable of Matsuda would provide a fixing means for the cable. Applicant may have a different reason to combine the references, but examiner’s reason to combine the references does not have to be the same as that of the applicant. Applicant raises several questions as to why the references are combined as suggested in the Office Action. Applicant, however, have not provided reason or disadvantage of providing the cable of Matsuda with the opening taught by Oh. To answer at least one of the applicant’s questions, even if the opening of Oh were to be filled by the adhesive of Matsuda, the opening is still a fixing means for the cable. If there were no opening, the adhesive 990 would bond only one surface of the insulating portion to the substrate. When the opening, as taught by Oh, is provided in insulating portion of Matsuda; the adhesive 990 would fill the opening and extend to the other opposite surface of the insulating portion, further secure the cable onto the substrate.
Applicant argues that Oh does not teach or suggest any adhesive in the fixing portion 215 and requests the examiner to explain how the front side end of the cable of Oh could still be removably inserted and removed from the connector 51 if adhesive is provided in the fixing portion 215.
Examiner would disagree. Oh is relied upon only to support the position of providing an opening in the cable as a fixing means. Oh does not have to disclose adhesive being provided in the fixing portion 215, and Oh is NOT modified to have adhesive in the fixing portion 215.
Applicant argues that adhesive 990 of Matsuda is located in a groove formed in the substrate 900, and is not provided in any opening of the cable 1 of Matsuda. Accordingly, the adhesive 990 is only provided in a groove of the second insulating layer 930, and not in any opening or groove within the cable 1.
Examiner would disagree. As earlier argued by the applicant that when Matsuda is modified to have the opening taught by Oh, the adhesive 990 will fill the opening 215. Accordingly, the adhesive 990 fills the groove in the second insulating layer 930 and the opening 215 of Oh provided in the cable 1 of Matsuda.
Regarding the 102 rejection of claims 2 and 15, applicant argues that a lower portion of the resin 980 of Matsuda is not a bottom plate as cited in claims 2 and 15. Examiner would disagree. Matsuda does not label the portion, indicated by the examiner as a bottom plate in the annotated Figure below. Therefore, such portion is not a lower portion of the resin 980 as argued by the applicant.
Applicant argues that the resin 980 of Matsuda is not a portion of the cable 1 which protrudes from a portion of the insulating layer 20 of Matsuda, but instead a separate resin layer. Examiner would disagree. Claims 2 and 15, each calls for “the cable includes…a bottom plate portion”. The fact that the unlabeled portion protrudes from one side end portion of the insulating portion, it is considered to be included in the cable.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Matsuda teaches a permanent fixing arrangement between a cable and a substrate, while Oh teaches a removable fixing arrangement between a cable and a connector. The two are incompatible alternative methods for connecting cables to substrates.
Examiner would disagree. As noticed by the applicant that Oh teaches a fixing arrangement between a cable and a connector, not a substrate. Therefore, the Office Action suggests to connect the conductive wire of Oh to one side end surface of a substrate as taught by Matsuda such that the combined substrate and cable can be installed in a flat surface.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights