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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 09/09/2024, in which claims 4-6 were amended, claims 8-13 were added, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, claim 3 and claim 11 each recites “the length of the edge area in the width direction is 100 µm or more” which covers a range up to infinity.
However, the specification does not provide any description of an indefinite length. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 3 and claim 11 and all claims depending therefrom were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the longitudinal direction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the edge of the long film” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the width direction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the base material film of the window frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the longitudinal direction” in line 3 and “the first or second electronic component” in line 7, “the terminals of the first electronic component” in line 9, “the terminals of the second electronic component” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the base material film of the window frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “the base material film of the window frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the edge of the long film” in lines 2-3, “the width direction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the length of the edge area” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim12 recites “the base material film of the window frame” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “the longitudinal direction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 further recites “applying an identification mark to enable a defective individualized piece to be identified at least one of a predetermined individualized piece of the long film or a base material film on which the predetermined individualized piece is arranged.” The limitation is confusing. It is unclear what Applicant attempt to claim. It is unclear how a defective individualized piece to be identified at least one of a predetermined individualized piece of the long film or a base material film on which the predetermined individualized piece is arranged.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights