CTNF 18/897,309 CTNF 90692 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2023/008405 filed March 6, 2023. 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US 9,807,874) . In regards to claim 1 , Hayashi teaches a conductive film (figure 2) comprising: a base material (2); a first resin layer (6a) provided on the base material (2); a second resin layer (7, with resin (6B), see figure 2) provided on the first resin layer (6a) and having a trench (tapered portion of via conductor (12)) opening to a surface opposite to the first resin layer (6a)(see figure 2); and a conductive layer (12) provided in the trench (see tapered shape of (12), wherein the first resin layer (6) comprises a first resin portion (8) and a plurality of first inorganic particles (9)(see figure 2), and wherein at least a part of the plurality of first inorganic particles (9) partially protrude from the first resin portion (8) toward the second resin layer (7, with resin (6B), see figure 2) (The second insulating layer 7 has spaces of 35% by volume or less and the spaces are filled with a part of the resin 8 of the first insulating layer 6; (column 5, lines 23-25). In regards to claim 2 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first inorganic particles (9) are unevenly distributed on a side of the second resin layer (7) in the first resin layer (6a; figure 2). In regards to claim 3 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 1, wherein the second resin layer (7) comprises a second resin portion (6b) and a plurality of second inorganic particles (11), and wherein the plurality of second inorganic particles (11) are unevenly distributed on a side of the first resin layer (6b) in the second resin layer (7). In regards to claim 4 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 3, wherein a plurality of the second inorganic particles (11) are present around a portion protruding toward the second resin layer (7)(The second insulating layer 7 has spaces of 35% by volume or less and the spaces are filled with a part of the resin 8 of the first insulating layer 6; (column 5, lines 23-25)) in each of the plurality of first inorganic particles (9) partially protruding toward the second resin layer (10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 9,807,874) in view of Ke et al. (US 2004/019550) . In regards to claim 5 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 3. Hayashi does not explicitly teach an average particle size of the plurality of second inorganic particles is smaller than an average particle size of the plurality of first inorganic particles. Ke et al. teaches an average particle size of the plurality of second particles (230) is smaller than an average particle size of the plurality of first particles (220). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made an average particle size of the plurality of second particles is smaller than an average particle size of the plurality of first particles , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) In regards to claim 6 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 3. Hayashi does not explicitly teach an average particle size of the plurality of second inorganic particles is 10 nm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made an average particle size of the plurality of second inorganic particles is 10 nm or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) In regards to claim 7 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 7. Hayashi does not explicitly teach wherein 80% or more of the total number of the second inorganic particles are distributed within a region with a distance from a surface of the first resin layer being 1/3 or less of a thickness of the first resin layer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made 80% or more of the total number of the second inorganic particles are distributed within a region with a distance from a surface of the first resin layer being 1/3 or less of a thickness of the first resin layer. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) In regards to claim 8 , Hayashi teaches the conductive film according to claim 8. Hayashi teaches does not teach a display device comprising: the conductive film according to claim 1. Ke et al. teaches a display device (crystal display, paragraph [0002]) comprising: the conductive film (figure 2B) according to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the wiring substrate of Hayashi the display device as taught by Ke et al. since a wiring substrate is well known to be used in a display device . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inoue (US 2007/0164349) teaches particles embedded in an insulating layer. Furuyama (US 2018/0180975) teaches a substrate/insulation layer with particles embedded into the layers. Iguchi (US 2019/0100663) teaches a conductive film . Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848 Application/Control Number: 18/897,309 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/897,309 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/897,309 Page 4 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/897,309 Page 5 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/897,309 Page 6 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights