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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue burden for the Office to conduct a search that encompasses all pending claims. This is not found persuasive because the two groups are classified in different areas, and the search for one group does not require a search in the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, lines 1-2, in the phrase “the conductive…conductive attachment region”, “the conductive attachment region” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ooishi et al. (2021/0118589).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ooishi et al. (Figs 11-12) discloses a film (11/51) comprising: a conductive substrate layer (51) having a major surface extending in at least two dimensions bounded by a periphery, the conductive substrate layer comprising: a conductive trace region (52) extending along the major surface and having a first density per unit area of the major surface; a plurality of nonconductive regions (53) extending along the major surface, having a second density per unit area of the major surface greater than the first density (Fig. 11, area of each nonconductive 53 is larger than that of each conductive area 52), and having an average nonconductive region area (all nonconductive areas 53 have the same dimention, so each nonconductive area is an average nonconductive region area), each nonconductive region being surrounded by a portion of the conductive trace region; a plurality of conductive attachment regions extending along the major surface, each conductive attachment region having an associated conductive attachment region area greater than or equal to the average nonconductive region area (re-claim 1). Ooishi et al. also discloses that each nonconductive region is an opening in the conductive substrate layer ([0197], nonconductive parts may be voids) (re-claim 2); the nonconductive regions have uniform areas within ±10% of each other (uniform areas) (re-claim 3); each conductive attachment region area is larger than the average nonconductive region area (see the annotated Figure above) (re-claim 4); each conductive attachment region area is any integer multiple greater than or equal to 2 of the average nonconductive region area (see annotated Figure above) (re-claim 5); the conductive trace region and the plurality of nonconductive regions form a matrix-like pattern and each nonconductive region has one or more of the following shapes: rectangular, quadrilateral, hexagonal, circular, ovate, and triangle, including rounded or elongated versions thereof (Fig. 12) (re-claim 7); the conductive substrate layer further comprises a peripheral region at least partially forming the periphery (Fig. 11) (re-claim 8); and the conductive trace region and conductive attachment region at least partially form a single electrical node (re-claim 9).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (2019/0301058).
Shimizu et al. discloses a film (resin coating [0089] and conductive fabric) comprising: a conductive substrate layer (Fig. 2) having a major surface extending in at least two dimensions bounded by a periphery, the conductive substrate layer comprising: a conductive trace region (areas having a strike inside a square in region 4) extending along the major surface and having a first density per unit area of the major surface; a plurality of nonconductive regions (black and white, no strike, squares in regions 4 and 5) extending along the major surface, having a second density per unit area of the major surface greater than the first density (Fig. 2), and having an average nonconductive region area (all nonconductive areas have the same dimention, so each nonconductive area is an average nonconductive region area), each nonconductive region being surrounded by a portion of the conductive trace region; a plurality of conductive attachment regions extending along the major surface, each conductive attachment region having an associated conductive attachment region area greater than or equal to the average nonconductive region area (see annotated Figure below) (re-claim 1). Shimizu et al. also discloses that each conductive attachment region area is larger than the average nonconductive region area (re-claim 4); each conductive attachment region area is any integer miltiple greater than or eqaul to 2 of the average nonconductive reigion area (re-claim 5); and the conducctive substrate layer (conductive fabric) havis a thickness between 9 µm and 210 µm ([0091], 0.15 mm) (re-claim 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
757
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooishi et al.
Ooishi et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a ratio of a first conductivity value of the first material forming the conductive trace region (52 [0198]) to a second conductivity value of a second material forming the nonconductive regions (53 [0201], very small amount of conductive fibers in the nonconductive part to create an electrical short circuit therebetween). Ooishi et al. does not disclose the ratio being equal to or greater than 10. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a suitable ratio for the film of Ooishi et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting film, higher ratio meaning higher conductivity for the film. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooishi et al. in view of Ichiki et al. (2019/0235672).
Ooishi et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a nonconductive support (13) and the film (11/51) according to claim 1 applied to the nonconductive support. Ooishi et al. does not disclose the apparatus comprising an electrical system having an electrical pathway, wherein the film according to claim 1 is electrically coupled to the electrical pathway. Ichiki et al. discloses an apparatus comprising an electrical system (32) having an electrical pathway (26) and a film (22 having conductive trace region 24) electrically coupled to the electrical pathway (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electrical system having an electrical pathway, as taught by Ichiki et al., and couple the film of Ooishi et al. to the electrical pathway to provide an electrical interconnection therefrom since the film of Ooishi et al. has improved electrical and physical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 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.
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
