DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 6-8, in the reply filed on 4/8/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the finding of a lack of unity is premature because a full search has not been performed. This is not found persuasive because lack of unity notes the technical feature is not a special technical feature and an full search is not required to prove that.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Tatsuzawa et al., US 2019/0241771.
Regarding claim 1, Tatsuzawa (figures 5 & 18) teaches an individualized piece-processed adhesive film, comprising individualized pieces 5 having, with respect to a substrate on which a component is mounted, an opening 5a to surround the component 11, the individualized pieces 5 being arranged in the longitudinal direction of a base material film 4.
With respect to claim 2, Tatsuzawa (figures 5 & 18) teaches the opening 5a is an exposed portion of the base material film 4.
As to claim 4, Tatsuzawa (figure 1) teaches the long film 4 is wound on a reel 3.
In re claim 6, Tatsuzawa (figures 5 & 18) teaches a connection structure, comprising a substrate 12 on which a component 11 is mounted, and an electronic component, wherein terminals of the substrate 12 are connected to terminals of the electronic component 11 by using an individualized piece of adhesive film 5 having an opening 5a to surround the component 11.
Concerning claim 7, Tatsuzawa (figure 1) teaches the long film 4 is wound on a reel 3.
Pertaining to claim 8, Tatsuzawa (figure 1) teaches the long film 4 is wound on a reel 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuzawa et al., US 2019/0241771, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al., US 12,685,089.
In claim 3, Tatsuzawa fails to teach the opening is a void portion where the base material film is not present.
Kikuchi (figure 1) teaches the opening 4 is a void portion where the base material film 2 is not present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the void of Kikuchi in the invention of Tatsuzawa because Fukushima teaches it is an alternative embodiment. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art tec various aspects of the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 8/21/26
Prosecution Insights