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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (EP 2843913 A1) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses an electronic device (100;Fig.1-2), comprising: a surface structure (110), comprising: a flexible substrate (110) ; and a first conductive line (112;Fig.1), disposed on the flexible substrate, wherein the surface structure is stretched to form a curved surface (110 is stretched to form onto curbed surface of 130:Fig.3), wherein a routing direction of the first conductive line on a projection surface is different from a component force direction of a tensile force parallel to the projection surface subjected to any point on the first conductive line ( see side surface mounting tensile direction of 110 mounting on to120-2 which different from top down surface mounting direction of 110 in Fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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.
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) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses the claimed invention except for wherein there is an included angle between the routing direction and the tensile direction, and the included angle is between 15 degrees and 75 degrees or between 105 degrees and 165 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein there is an included angle between the routing direction and the tensile direction, and the included angle is between 15 degrees and 75 degrees or between 105 degrees and 165 degrees in order to provide proper securing of the flexible substrate to a structure to perform operations under heavy movement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses the claimed invention except wherein a tensile rate subjected to the first conductive line is greater than or equal to 5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wherein a tensile rate subjected to the first conductive line is greater than or equal to 5% in order to provide proper securing of the flexible substrate to a structure to perform operations under heavy movement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed over prior art of record.
Claims 18-19 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.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1-10, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a first conductive line, disposed above the substrate; anda first dielectric pattern, disposed above and overlapping with the first conductive line, wherein the surface structure has a first region and a second region, the first dielectric pattern in the first region has a first average width, the first dielectric pattern in the second region has a second average width, and the first average width is different from the second average width" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1.
Regarding claims 11-15, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a first conductive Line, disposed above the substrate, wherein the first conductive line has a first thickness; a second conductive line, disposed above the first conductive line, wherein the second conductive line has a second thickness; and a first dielectric pattern, disposed between the first conductive line and the second conductive line, wherein the first dielectric pattern has a third thickness, wherein a ratio of the third thickness to the first thickness and a ratio of the third thickness to the second thickness are respectively between 0.5 and 10" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 11.
Regarding claims 18-19, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the surface structure further comprises: a first dielectric pattern, disposed on the first conductive line, wherein a shape of the first dielectric pattern corresponds to a shape of the first conductive line " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 16.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights