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 .
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.
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) 1-4, 7-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,564,115 (Gribble) in view of US 2024/0388020 (Zhang).
Gribble discloses, referring primarily to figure 1, a method, comprising: forming a grid pattern from a planar sheet of electrically conductive material (col. 1, lines 55-70) defining a plurality of regularly spaced apertures (14) therein that forms an interconnected grid array of conductive traces; attaching the interconnected grid array of conductive traces to a first dielectric substrate (col. 1, lines 50-70); forming a separate conductive trace from the interconnected grid array of conductive traces by severing (15) connections between the separate conductive trace and the interconnected grid array of conductive traces. Gribble additionally discloses that the ends of the conductor are used to connect circuit elements (col. 2, lines 5-20). Gribble does not specifically disclose attaching a first conductor in a first electrical cable to a first contact pad defined by the separate conductive trace and attaching a second conductor in a second electrical cable to a second contact pad defined by the separate conductive trace, thereby interconnecting the first conductor to the second conductor via the separate conductive trace [claim 1]. However, it is well known in the art to attach cables in the claimed fashion as evidenced by Zhang (figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the invention of Gribble as is known in the art and evidenced by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for interconnection between cables.
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that wherein the method further includes attaching a second dielectric substrate to the interconnected grid array of conductive traces and the first dielectric substrate [claim 2]. However, such a modification would merely require a duplication of the existing parts of the modified invention of Gribble which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for more simultaneous connections.
Additionally, the twice-modified invention of Gribble teaches, wherein openings are formed in the second dielectric substrate to provide access to the first and second contact pads (col. 1, line 70 – col. 2, line 10) [claim 3], wherein the openings are formed prior to attaching the second dielectric substrate to the interconnected grid array of conductive traces and the first dielectric substrate [claim 4].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the limitations wherein the connections between the separate conductive trace and the interconnected grid array of conductive traces are severed from the grid pattern by punching out cross connections between the separate conductive trace and the interconnected grid array of conductive traces [claim 7] and wherein the connections between the separate conductive trace and the interconnected grid array of conductive traces are severed from the grid pattern by a process selected from a list consisting of laser cutting, water jet cutting, blade cutting, and blanking [claim 8] are well known processes for severing electrical connections and a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would be able to choose any one of these known processes to quickly and effectively sever the connections.
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the substrate comprises a material selected from a list consisting of polyethylene naphthalate, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyimide. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that each of the claimed materials, particularly polyimide, are well known in the art to be used as insulating boards. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use any of the claimed materials in the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a material known for preventing unwanted shorting.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the first electrical cable is a flat flexible cable [claim 10]. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that flat flexible cables exist. Therefore, a flat flexible cable may be used as the cable in the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been use a cable adaptable to different space constraints.
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the second electrical cable is a flexible printed circuit [claim 11]. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that flexible printed circuits exist. Therefore, a flexible printed circuit may be used as the cable in the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been use a cable adaptable to different space constraints.
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that each conductive trace in the interconnected grid array of conductive traces has a width between 1.54 mm and 4.08 mm [claim 12]. However, such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the existing parts of the modified invention of Gribble, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet desired size constraints.
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the interconnected grid array of conductive traces has a thickness between 34.8 to 104.8 µm [claim 13]. However, such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the existing parts of the modified invention of Gribble, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet desired size constraints.
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the grid pattern comprises a copper or copper alloy material. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that conductors comprising copper and/or copper alloy material is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use copper and/or copper alloy as the material for the conductors in the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a material known for high electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 1 and including that the grid pattern is coater with solder (Gribble col. 2, lines 5-15). Modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the grid pattern is plated with at least one material selected from a list consisting of tin, tin-based alloys, silver, and gold. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that solders make comprise any of the claimed materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use any of the claimed materials as the solder in modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been use a material with known electromechanical properties.
Regarding claim 17, Gribble teaches a splicing device configured to interconnect circuit components (col. 2, lines 5-15), the splicing device comprising: a grid pattern formed from a planar sheet of electrically conductive material (col. 1, lines 50-70) having a plurality of regularly spaced apertures (14) therein that forms an interconnected array grid of conductive traces; and a dielectric substrate (col. 1, lines 50-70) attached to the interconnected grid array of conductive traces, a separate conductive trace being created from the interconnected grid array of conductive traces by severing (15) connections between the separate conductive trace and the interconnected grid array of conductive traces. Gribble does not specifically state that the circuit components comprise flat flexible cables (FFC) and/or flexible printed circuits (FPC) [claim 17]. However, it is well known in the art to attach cables in the claimed fashion as evidenced by Zhang (figure 2). Additionally, the Examiner takes Official Notice that both flat flexible cables and flexible printed circuits exist. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for interconnection between cables adaptable to different space constraints.
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Gribble teaches the claimed invention as described above with respect to claim 17 except modified Gribble does not specifically teach that the dielectric substrate is a first dielectric substrate and wherein the splicing device further includes a second dielectric substrate attached to the interconnected grid array of conductive traces and located opposite the first dielectric substrate [claim 18]. However, such a modification would merely require a duplication of the existing parts of the modified invention of Gribble which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to incorporate the claimed features into the modified invention of Gribble. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for more simultaneous connections.
Moreover, the twice-modified invention of Gribble teaches wherein the second dielectric substrate defines openings that are configured to provide access to first and second contact pads on the separate conductive trace (Gribble col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 5) [claim 19].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 14 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 states the limitation “wherein the interconnected grid array of conductive traces is attached to the dielectric substrate using a laser welding process.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claim 6 states the limitation “wherein the interconnected grid array of conductive traces is attached to the dielectric substrate by a dielectric adhesive.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art. Claim 14 states the limitation “wherein the steps of attaching the first conductor to the first contact pad and attaching the second conductor to the second contact pad are performed using a laser welding process.” This limitation, in conjunction with the other claimed features, was neither found to be disclosed in, nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1932. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15-15:15 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 Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
JEREMY C. NORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/JEREMY C NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights