DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160054490 (UM ) in view of WO 2019131311 A1 (Yusuke).
Re claims 1-8, UM essentially teaches the claimed invention including a film with a resin composition of acrylic and ultraviolet absorbance and thickness (see Abstracts, [7-11], [62-66] [96-99] as claimed, everything save the Tg and Mwt. UM teaches thickness optical film having desired ultraviolet light absorptivity may be manufactured without a separate additional process, and thicknesses of the respective layers and contents of the ultraviolet absorbers may be easily adjusted.
Yusuke teaches the claimed Tg and Mwt on page 4, last paragraph – pg. 5, 5th paragraph within overlapping ranges for having electroconductivity concerning this invention exhibits toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the UM film to include the resin with the Tg and Mwt for Yusuke teaches benefits in electroconductivity toughness.
All properties not explicit are found inherent as the same materials and weights are taught.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
In light of the overlap between the claimed composition and that disclosed by the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition that is both disclosed by the combination and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Re claims 9-11, UM doesn’t teach the foil and wiring board as claimed.
Yusuke teaches (Wiring board 1) First, FIG. 1A shows an example of the wiring board 1. The wiring board 1 includes a base 10, a first conductive portion 20 provided on one side of the base 10, and a second conductive portion 22 provided on the other side of the base 10, and the first conductive portion A through hole 15 is provided between the base 20 and the second conductive portion 22 in the thickness direction of the base 10 so as to penetrate the base 10. See page 17, top.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the metal foil to the film of UM form a wiring board as taught by Yusuke for conductivity.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights